Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Traffic Congestion

Sue Doughty: If he will make a statement on his plans for traffic and congestion reduction in England.

Alistair Darling: This afternoon, I shall make a statement and publish a report on the Government's 10-year transport investment plan. The investment plan will bring about reductions in congestion, but continued progress will require sustained investment as well as other measures over many years.

Sue Doughty: The Secretary of State said this morning on the radio that he seeks merely to stem the remorseless rise of congestion. Does that mean allowing it to continue to rise? If so, what has happened to the imaginative and innovative solutions that we need to reduce the growth in traffic and to reduce actual traffic and congestion by 2011?

Alistair Darling: I have said on several occasions that it is clear to me that the levels of congestion in this country two years ago, when these targets were fixed, were far higher than people thought. It is also clear that, as a result of strong economic growth, the pressures on the system will be far higher than was anticipated. As I shall make clear later this afternoon, without the investment that we are bringing forward, congestion would rise remorselessly. That was what happened in the past, and that would be the case now were it not for our planned investment. That investment plan is designed to cut congestion and make a significant impact, but, overall, levels of congestion will be higher than we thought two years ago. I am being realistic about that, because it is the right approach to take. What is necessary, however, is to continue that investment, year on year, in road improvements, in bypasses, in junction improvements, in public transport, in buses and in rail. That is what we intend to do.

David Clelland: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have raised on previous occasions the serious congestion on the A1 western bypass, a two-lane motorway, around the Tyne and Wear conurbation, which is often easily as congested as the M6, a three-lane motorway. Will he give the House some information on what progress is being made on introducing measures to relieve congestion on that road?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend makes a key point. If we are to tackle congestion, we need to look at its causes, and, in particular, at the places where it occurs. He will be aware that I made an announcement last week about a number of road programmes. The road mentioned by my hon. Friend is being studied by the Highways Agency and as and when we have something to say about it, I shall report it to him and to the House. The key point in relation to congestion is that we must, as a country, commit ourselves to sustained investment, year on year, decade on decade, which successive Governments have failed to do in the past.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State said last week:
	XI have enough experience as a Minister with large IT projects to be very wary of people who come along and say, XDon't worry, it'll be all right on the night." It does not quite work that way."—[Official Report, 10 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 162.]
	Does he have every confidence that, come the end of February next year, people will be satisfied with the system that will be operating in London?

Alistair Darling: As I said, I have enough experience as a Minister dealing with IT projects for which I have responsibility to be cautious. Equally, I have enough experience to know that when other people are dealing with projects I should be even more cautious.

Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State cast a second glance over the proposals to dual the A453, the final part of which runs through the Clifton section of my constituency? The point at which the delays occur on the A453 has always been that at which the road crosses the River Trent, where the bottleneck is the bridge itself, which is not to be widened. Will he consider phasing the proposals to judge whether the final part of the scheme will work, because so much is dependent on diversionary transport planning, much of which is not yet in place?

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the problem, because a few months ago I drove down that road, and I remember the congestion point that my hon. Friend mentioned. My recollection is that the Highways Agency is considering whether there should be a further crossing over the Trent to accommodate that problem. I shall look into the matter again and write to him. He is right to raise the general issue that if one sorts out congestion at one point, one should try to sort out the congestion at the next point down the line.

Don Foster: How will cutting rail services and increasing rail fares help to tackle road congestion?

Alistair Darling: Over the next few years we will double the amount of money spent on the railways; from recollection, we are spending something like #12 billion on the railway system. I have made it clear on a number of occasions, as has Richard Bowker, the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, that the rail industry must get a grip of the costs that it faces. The Government are willing to spend more, and investment is being made, but, as in other cases, that must be coupled with reform. First, the industry must get a grip of its major project costs, but it must also deliver better standards in relation to reliability and the quality of service offered.
	I am sure that many Members of the House will know from their own experience that too many rail companies in this country have not improved their performance. Richard Bowker and the SRA are therefore right to drive a hard bargain on behalf of the public, who expect us to make sure that money is spent prudently and to the best possible effect.

Helen Jackson: But will my right hon. Friend not accept, as I believe he does, that the only answer to road congestion is an integrated approach that talks about long-term investment in the railways and public transport as well as in necessary road improvements? I am sure that he does not want to be called the son of Beeching, so will he assure the House that we will not have railway closures and public transport cuts? That is not the way to improve road congestion.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. As I said last week, any transport policy has to be measured and balanced. That means that we have to spend more on our railways because they are suffering from year after year and decade after decade of under-investment. We also have to make sensible improvements in our road network, which, in many cases, was designed 30 or 40 years ago and now carries levels of traffic that could not have been anticipated then.
	However, it is equally true that, if we spend more, we must make sure that we get more out of the system. I am sure that my hon. Friend cannot be the only Member of the House who becomes frustrated to find that, when we put more money into the railway system, too many companies do not make the improvements that they should make. Frankly, the reliability levels of the trains need to be improved. Poor maintenance and staffing problems are all problems that the industry needs to sort out.
	I am very clear about this. The Government are prepared to spend more on the railways—it is substantially more—but, at the same time, we are entitled to say to the industry, XYou've got to get a grip of costs and you've got to get a grip of projects. Above all, you've got to provide a much better service than at present." I believe that the railway industry now understands that the Government, and through them the SRA, are extremely serious when we say to it that it has got to up its game and drive up standards.

Tim Collins: If the Secretary of State is blaming what he calls an unexpected rise in congestion on unexpected economic growth, will he explain how a 5 per cent. growth in the number of jobs in the past five years translates into a 16 per cent. rise in average journey times, into a 33 per cent. rise in the CBI's estimate of the cost to business of congestion and into a 40 per cent. rise in average congestion levels on motorways?

Alistair Darling: The principal cause of the rise in congestion on the roads and railways is that, for years, successive Governments failed to invest enough. Indeed, if we ask ourselves why much of the transport system in other European countries is, generally speaking, better than ours, we find that the reason is that they invested more year on year and decade after decade. The hon. Gentleman's problem—I put this to him last week—is that he does not have a policy for dealing with any of this. Until he has, he will forgive me for being a trifle sceptical of the criticism that he makes of us.

Tim Collins: If the answer is investment, why are the Government proposing to spend in every year of the 10-year plan less on both roads and rail than Margaret Thatcher spent in every year of her premiership? If it is all unexpected, how come that it was predicted almost to the precise percentage point in the Government's own document XNational Road Traffic Forecasts (Great Britain) 1997"?

Alistair Darling: On spending, it is a trifle disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to exclude from his figures private investment, which is also going into road and rail. It is interesting that private investment under this Government is 10 times greater now than it was under Margaret Thatcher's Government.

Angela Eagle: She got us into this mess.

Alistair Darling: That is as may be. However, the key point surely is that, unless all of us, including the Opposition, sign up to the proposition that we need to invest more in transport—public transport and in roads, rail and buses—the problems that face us will continue. I am clear that, as a result of the 10-year plan, we will stem the rising level of congestion that we would otherwise have faced. By investing in buses, railways, light transport and public transport overall as well as by putting more into the road system, we will steadily bear down on what is an undoubted problem. However, without the money and the commitment to investment, which the Conservatives certainly do not have, we will not crack the problem. The investment that the Government are putting forward will go a long way towards dealing with the problem. However, as I have made clear—let us face up to this—we have an awful lot more to do.

Airport Development

Tony Wright: What assessment he has made of the recent report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in relation to plans for airport development.

Chris Mullin: What assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution regarding the impact of a substantial increase in air travel on global warming; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Darling: The Government will consider this report along with responses to our consultation on the development of air transport in the UK.

Tony Wright: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the subtitle of the royal commission's report is Xflying to a warmer climate"? It estimates that as much as 10 per cent. of man-made global warming will come from aviation in 50 years' time. Given that, is it not daft that travel by train gets ever more expensive while travel by air gets ever cheaper, and that we have no tax on aircraft fuel? Are we sure that it is sensible to keep increasing airport capacity to meet demand without raising questions about the nature of that demand?

Alistair Darling: I did notice the subtitle of the report as I read it on an aeroplane, although I was returning to my constituency at the time, and so travelling to a colder climate. I also noticed that the report was not as thorough and, perhaps, in-depth as I might have liked, notwithstanding the conclusions. In particular, it did not give due credit to the fact that the Government made it clear in the consultation document that we believe that the air industry should pay for the environmental costs that it causes.
	The report also did not take account of the fact that when I announced the consultation process, a number of hon. Members asked about rail alternatives, especially in the United Kingdom. I made it clear that once the west coast main line is upgraded and we have faster and more reliable train services, we will be able to encourage people to use that railway line rather than flying from Manchester to London, which strikes me as something they would not want to do if they had a reliable railway service. However, none of that gets away from the fact that many people go to airports to fly not within the UK or to close destinations in Europe, but to other parts of the world. For that reason, we need to consider the capacity of airports, notwithstanding the report's conclusions.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the Secretary of State is trying to give full answers, but I have the difficulty of getting through the Order Paper and need his co-operation.

Chris Mullin: But is it not the case that there is a flat contradiction between the Secretary of State's Department's plans for an indefinite expansion of air travel and the Government's commitment to the environment? Has he consulted his colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and are they happy?

Alistair Darling: That does not happen to be the Government's policy. In the consultation, the Government asked to what extent we should meet the likely demand for an increase in flying over the next few years. The premise on which my hon. Friend bases his question is wrong. In the interests of brevity, I shall leave it at that.

John Wilkinson: In seeking to meet demand for air transport, will the Secretary of State take note of the very serious air pollution that already exists in and around Heathrow? Will he exclude the possibility of a third east-west runway at that airport in favour of an incremental development of the airport system in the south-east of England as a whole, which is a more cost effective option?

Alistair Darling: It would be imprudent of me to come to a conclusion on something on which the Government are consulting. However, I am well aware of those points.

Anne McIntosh: The House will be familiar with my interests in aviation and air transport. In drafting the response to the royal commission's findings, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential for increasing the role of regional airports so that our constituents can travel from Scotland and the north of England directly, using regional air services, without being affected by the obsession of having to travel over London? Is that one aspect of his airport expansion proposals on which he might see fit to take a favourable approach?

Alistair Darling: I was not aware of the hon. Lady's interests in aviation, but as she has raised them I shall have a look. As for regional airports, as I said when I made my statement in July, many people in central Scotland, the north-east and the north-west of England would like to be able to fly to more international destinations and not have to come through a London airport. That is addressed in the consultation, and is something on which representations are sought—indeed, a number of people have made representations about it.

John McDonnell: Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that information and recommendations from the royal commission will be included in the consultation papers on airport capacity developments that will be produced in the new year?

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend knows, the consultation documents refer to the environmental costs of airport expansion, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) earlier, but I cannot give an undertaking that the royal commission findings will be incorporated in a Government paper, as that would not be appropriate. It is fairly well known that the royal commission has looked at the matter and reported—I am sure that people living at or around Heathrow will be well aware of the report, and will take up the arguments that they believe to be appropriate.

David Curry: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the House last Thursday that she had had discussions with the right hon. Gentleman about the report on airport policy produced by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Does he recall those discussions, and can he tell us how he has amended his policy as a result?

Alistair Darling: On the documents, when we discussed the matter in prolonged exchanges in Question Time last month, I said that we would publish a further paper on the result of the court decision on Gatwick. The representations and general comments that we have received are publicly available and known about. Ministers will take them into account, as will the House.
	It is important that we take into account not just what people say about the need to expand airports but what they say about the environmental cost of air travel—both are important. As I have said time and time again, next year we will reach a conclusion about what we ought to do. I am pretty clear about the fact that the House, the industry and the public want certainty about our strategy, and we still plan to make that decision towards the end of next year.

Vehicle Emissions

Bill O'Brien: What representations he has made to the road transport industry to reduce pollution from vehicles which can cause asthma; and if he will make a statement.

David Jamieson: Ministers meet regularly with representatives from the road transport industry, and the issue of the environmental and health impacts of road transport is frequently raised. Action at both national and European level has been very successful in reducing the levels of pollutants from road transport over the past decade, and the Government continue to play an active role to ensure future improvements in this sector.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he share my view that the increase in the number of people suffering from asthma, particularly children, is unacceptable? There is now evidence that particulates from vehicles are a cause of asthma—the problem is mainly caused by the density of traffic. Is my hon. Friend aware of the important studies by the Department of Health on the medical effects of air pollution, and will he act upon that information to ensure that the communities that we represent can be free of asthma?

David Jamieson: I am aware of the report to which my hon. Friend referred—he is right to be concerned about this important matter, especially the impact on children. The latest research on the causes of asthma shows that there is no evidence that air pollution causes asthma, but there is certainly evidence that it exacerbates or may bring on attacks in people who already have asthma. We have therefore asked the Government's expert Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants to provide further advice next year.

John Redwood: Recently, one of the main causes of increased vehicle pollution has been the mad policies of the Mayor of London—narrowing streets, putting in chicanes, humps and bumps, and turning all the traffic lights red, which has been copied by other authorities around the country. In the interests of having cleaner air, will the Minister offer new guidance to local government to start easing the flow of traffic, rather than clobbering the motorist?

David Jamieson: The congestion charging zone will give a dispensation to cleaner vehicles, which we greatly welcome. If we get some vehicles off the road to create a flow of traffic, that will reduce congestion. Roads can be congested by people travelling one person to a car, stop-starting, and travelling at low speeds. That is the most polluting aspect of vehicle usage, and we hope that congestion charging can make some contribution to tackling it.

Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend examine carefully the relationship between congestion and asthma in London, and in particular, with the implementation of congestion charging in the spring, will he look carefully at whether the levels of asthma fall as the levels of congestion fall, as we hope they will?

David Jamieson: That is a very good point. We have asked the Government's Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants to consider the matter and refer it back to us next year. My hon. Friend will know that English local authorities can apply to have air quality management areas, in which they can have designated powers to conduct random roadside checks. All those things together will make a major contribution to improving asthma levels. Some of the evidence that we have at present is inconclusive. We want to make sure that the quality of the evidence is improved, so that we can take appropriate action.

Rail Franchise (Wales)

Elfyn Llwyd: When the successful bid for the all-Wales rail franchise will be announced.

John Spellar: The Strategic Rail Authority has asked for best and final offers to be submitted by bidders in February 2003. It expects that a preferred bidder will be announced in spring 2003.

Elfyn Llwyd: Bearing it in mind that Wales has the worst railway services in the whole of the UK in terms of frequency, punctuality and so on, what does the Minister think will be the ultimate effect of the direction from the SRA to cut the franchise bids by 20 per cent? In a rural context, common sense dictates fewer services.

John Spellar: The SRA has actually asked bidders to look at what would happen under reduced subsidy levels. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Wales received a subsidy last year of 14.3p per passenger kilometre, compared with a national average of 3.4p. The SRA is saying that companies should be looking at how they can bear down on their costs. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the train operators, Network Rail and the contractors must consider how the public—the travelling public and the taxpaying public—are to get value for money out of the rail system. That is a proper question to ask, and one that any responsible Government would support.

Ian Lucas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advent of an all-Wales rail franchise should not diminish the importance of services into England? Does he share my profound regret that a town such as Wrexham, the capital of north Wales, still does not have a decent rail service to London, which is a constant drain on the developing industry there?

John Spellar: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point with regard to Wrexham. North Wales will benefit from the upgrade of the west coast main line, which will significantly improve journey times to north Wales. My hon. Friend will also be aware that in co-operation with the Welsh Executive, we have been looking at improving the road network in that area. I accept that there will be further problems to deal with. There have been decades of under-investment, which we cannot remedy overnight. We are, however, taking significant steps in that direction.

Chris Grayling: The Minister knows that First Great Western recently put forward a proposal to link Wales to London by high-speed line. The Strategic Rail Authority gave that proposal a very negative response. Is it now the Government's policy that the private sector should not be involved in developing ideas for the enhancement of the rail infrastructure?

John Spellar: No, we are certainly not saying that. The SRA is clearly saying to train operators, and rightly so, that their first priority must be to ensure that the franchises that they already have run efficiently and effectively, are reliable and provide customer satisfaction. There is much work to be done in the future as regards enhancements, but the key thing is to run the system as it is in order to cater for the travelling public and for freight. Train operators should be focusing all their efforts on that. Once we have got that sorted out, they should look at future enhancements.

Public Transport (Disabled Access)

Tom Clarke: If he will make a statement on access to all forms of public transport for people with disabilities.

David Jamieson: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his fine record of championing the causes of disabled people.
	Regulations requiring access for disabled people, including wheelchair users, to new trains, buses and coaches have been introduced. We have also accepted the recommendations on transport made by the disability rights taskforce and recently issued the first of two consultation documents on proposals to implement them.

Tom Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his generous reply. Will he focus in particular on access to buses to ensure that the appropriate equipment is made available and is constantly monitored? Will he also bear in mind the need for disability awareness training, especially for drivers?

David Jamieson: The Government share my right hon. Friend's commitment to providing accessible public transport and full access for disabled people. That relates especially to buses. As he probably knows, since December 2000, all new buses have had to comply with the needs of disabled people. We recognise that the matter involves not only improving trains or buses, but the training of the people who deliver the services. We have placed a duty on drivers to give appropriate assistance to disabled people from October this year. I am aware of a number of training scheme initiatives for bus drivers that will assist in improving services for disabled people.

Alistair Carmichael: I know that the Minister is aware that many of the essential inter-island lifeline services in my constituency are provided using Islander aircraft, which have access difficulties for people with some disabilities. Can he give my constituents some assurance that those lifeline services will be protected when the regulations take effect in 2005 and that we will not be left with a situation in which one size is supposed to fit all?

David Jamieson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering those matters, especially in the consultation that is taking place now and in the coming year. We want to ensure that we get it right. I can assure him that there is a total will to ensure that all public transport facilities are fully available to disabled people. We welcome and listen to the views of disabled groups, including lobbying groups, which make very important representations to us, and I will bear in mind the points that he makes.

Gordon Prentice: Richard Branson gets a lot of stick from us—[Interruption.] Indeed, but I travelled on one of the spanking new voyager trains from Preston to Bristol only a few days ago and was staggered at how sophisticated they are. There is even signage in Braille in the toilets and elsewhere. Will the Minister pass on those good ideas from the voyager train, which could be picked up by other train operating companies?

David Jamieson: I am sure that the Virgin operators will read Hansard and take note of what my hon. Friend says. As he will know, the SRA has a code of practice that takes into account the needs of disabled people, especially in respect of new rolling stock and the refurbishment of existing rolling stock. I, too, have travelled on some of the new Virgin trains and I concur that they are excellent not only for disabled people, but for all passengers.

Train Operating Companies

David Heath: If he will make a statement on the most recent rail performance indicators from train operating companies.

Alistair Darling: The figures published by the Strategic Rail Authority on 12 December show that overall performance between July and September of this year was better than for the equivalent period last year. However, much more needs to be done to drive up reliability and the SRA is leading work systematically to address the problems that cause delay on the network.

David Heath: Much more certainly needs to be done, given that since the advent of this Government, delays have doubled and cancellations have increased by more than half. As it is very often not the rail operating companies that are at fault, but the track and infrastructure, will the Secretary of State answer the question that was put to him earlier, but which he failed to answer: how will interests of the travelling public be assisted by cancelling even more services, reducing maintenance and increasing fares?

Alistair Darling: As the hon. Gentleman asked the question, let me answer it. The delays to trains are caused in a proportion of roughly half and half by problems on the track and problems in the train operating companies, which are currently responsible for about 48 per cent. of all delays. If one asks what the causes are on the part of the companies, one sees that 45 per cent. of them relate to problems with the train fleet—that is, reliability and maintenance problems.
	Some 12 per cent. relate to stations and problems in getting the trains away, and 18 per cent. relate to problems in relation to crewing. All those are management issues, so it does not necessarily follow that if we give the train operating companies more and more money, we will get a better service. As I made clear in my earlier reply, we must get a grip on costs and drive up the performance of management to get a better standard. I should have thought that all Members of the House, even Liberal Democrats, would sign up to that.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the Strategic Rail Authority has handed vast amounts of money to Connex, which is probably one of the most reviled managements in the whole railway system, and in whose interest it was to allow those people to continue, because they manifestly are not doing any of the things that my right hon. Friend has asked them to do?

Alistair Darling: In relation to Connex, the House and my hon. Friend will know that the decision has been taken to bring the franchise to an end earlier than would otherwise have happened. The reason that it has run forward to 2006 is, first, because that line is about to receive a lot of new rolling stock, and a new company coming in coupled with new rolling stock might have been problematic. Secondly, I came to the view—I have to authorise those things at the end of the day—that the cost of taking the Connex operation back in-house would probably have been higher than that of continuing with Connex until we can replace the franchise in 2006. I reached that judgment after consultation with the Strategic Rail Authority, but I took the view that Connex could not continue in the way that it had for the reasons that my hon. Friend knows. However, I have to arrange an orderly transfer; a disorderly transfer would have been an absolute disaster.

London Underground (PPP)

Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on progress towards the start of the public-private partnership contracts for the London underground and the transfer of assets to Transport for London.

John Spellar: Commercial agreement has been reached on the public-private partnership deals, and the preferred bidders have begun to raise their finance. We expect the JNP contract to come into force at the beginning of next year, and the BCV and SSL contracts to do so in the spring.
	The Mayor of London has said that he may appeal the European Commission's decision that the notified PPP arrangements do not constitute state aid. It would be inappropriate to transfer London Underground to Transport for London during the appeal period, or pending any actual appeal, of the state aid decision. The same position applies in relation to any legal challenge in the English courts.

Simon Hughes: Transport Ministers will have received the report from London Underground yesterday showing that the private sector costs have gone up by #300 million and the public sector costs have gone down by #200 million. Therefore, the estimate for the total project over the seven and a half years, which is the guaranteed price period, is in the same ballpark—about #9.5 billion for each. Given that the Government pledge was that the private option would save #4.5 billion and would go ahead only if it proved better value for money, are Transport Ministers big enough to admit that they will not save that money, that the private option will not prove better value for money, and now choose the other better and cheaper option?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman, in his mayoral bid, wants to postpone investment in the underground for several more years. He neglects to point out that London Underground says that this still represents value for money and that the contract is over 30 years and not seven and a half years. What the travelling public in London want is an end to the wrangling and an end to the threats of litigation after two failed court cases, at considerable cost to London travelers and ratepayers. They want the companies to get in, the investment to go in, and the tube to improve. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not support that.

Louise Ellman: Is there any serious transfer of risk to the private sector with 30-year contracts without a clause enabling termination in the public interest, and given the Government's new letters of comfort to the private sector issued only last week?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend should observe that there is the shareholder risk if companies fail to perform. The key basis of the contract is that it is driven by performance, and there will be a review at seven and a half years as well. What voters and the travelling public want is for the contract to get on and the nitpicking to stop.

Christopher Chope: The prices in the contract are fixed for only seven and a half years. The Minister implies that the savings will continue afterwards. For the first seven and a half years, the Government subsidy will be #1 billion a year. Yet when they first made the announcement in 1999, they said that taxpayers would pay no subsidies. Will the Minister explain that?

John Spellar: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that we are investing #1 billion a year in London Underground, which needs the money. As I said earlier, the contract represents value for money even with the adjustments that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned. London Underground have been negotiating exactly that, and the contract would have been in place much sooner had not Transport for London brought two abortive legal cases. Without those, we would already be experiencing the benefits. The sooner that happens, the better. I hope that it will happen fairly early in the new year. I also hope that Conservative Members share that aspiration.

Bus Services

Vernon Coaker: What steps he is taking to support improvements to local bus services.

John Spellar: The Government's 10-year transport plan and the Transport Act 2000 are the key elements that we have put in place for achieving improvements in bus services. We are now taking forward several other initiatives to ensure that the objective is achieved. For example, we have established the bus partnership forum, and we are currently reviewing value for money from existing bus subsidies.

Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend consider what we can do with local bus companies such as Nottingham City Transport, which has cut some of its unprofitable routes, especially to outlying estates, thus often isolating those communities? Will he ascertain whether we can increase urban bus grants in the same way as we provided rural bus grants to try to ensure that isolated estates retain the bus services on which they depend?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend knows about urban bus challenge. Indeed, Nottingham city council succeeded in its bid for funding in the 2002 urban bus challenge competition for the Sherwood-Matterley feeder link. That will benefit a part of my hon. Friend's constituency.
	My hon. Friend draws attention to an important problem that occurs especially on the edge of urban areas in outlying estates where a decline in patronage causes difficulty with the sustainability of services. In some cases, the appropriate response is a subsidy from the local passenger transport executive. In others, we should consider whether we need continuing fixed routes or more demand-led transport systems. Authorities are examining those matters. I am more than happy to consider the issues that my hon. Friend raised. They are not confined to his constituency, and they are a cause for concern.

Desmond Swayne: The 10-year transport plan foresees an increase of 10 per cent. in bus journeys by 2010. That includes an expected 50 per cent. increase in such journeys in London. The inescapable mathematical consequence is that rural bus travel will continue to decline. Is the Minister resigned to that?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman should observe not only increasing car ownership but the increase in the number of driving licence holders, notably women, from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the population. That has an impact on demand in rural areas. He is right that we will hit the 10 per cent. target. Even on the current figures, which we hope to improve, there was a 1 per cent. increase last year. Given his constituency, he will be well aware of increasing car ownership and usage in rural areas, and the consequent need for us to consider more demand-responsive services rather than the traditional bus routes, which are under much pressure through changing patterns of demand.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of the problems are caused by the Conservative Government's decision in the 1980s to deregulate bus services outside London? The extra money that the Government are laudably investing in bus transport is being eaten up by the profits of large companies, which do not increase coverage but place even more pressure on passenger transport authorities for more subsidies. Will he consider reregulating bus services outside London to solve the problem?

John Spellar: There is a variable picture across the country. In some areas, local authorities and the bus companies are working extremely well together to the benefit of the travelling public, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that picture is not universal, which is why we set up the bus partnership forum. I had the local authorities coming in with a litany of complaints about the bus companies. Equally, the bus companies were coming in with complaints about the local authorities, so we have got them together round the table. We have set up time-limited working parties to iron out a lot of those difficulties and to enable the companies and local authorities to come together and start spreading best practice across the country. We are starting to see some outcomes, but there is still a long way to go to achieve the service that her constituents deserve.

West Coast Main Line

Tony Cunningham: When he expects improvements in journey times on the west coast main line to be achieved.

David Jamieson: The Strategic Rail Authority's draft strategy for the west coast route modernisation project envisages that journey times will be reduced substantially by winter 2004. Journey times will be further reduced by 2006, when the vast majority of the upgrade will be complete.

Tony Cunningham: While I welcome that, we all know that the only real improvement in journey times will come with new trains and track improvements. We will get the new pendolino trains, which are to run from London to Manchester and from London to Birmingham. Much, much later, they will run further north. We will also get west coast main line upgrades as far as Crewe, and perhaps further north later on. When the Minister is in discussions with Network Rail, the SRA and Virgin, will he remind them that there are people who live north of Preston? My constituents have to travel by train because the nearest airport is more than 100 miles away.

David Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is aware that the west coast main line serves people well beyond Preston. In fact, some in Scotland might think that they have an interest in it as well. In the thrust of his question, he rightly underlined the west coast main line's strategic importance and rightly said that new rolling stock, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), has been introduced to the line. However, as my hon. Friend also pointed out, we will not be able to provide that service unless the track is complete and up to standard. We are now convinced that Network Rail has a grip on the issue and a realistic timetable for improvements. We want that to be delivered so that the line is fully operational by 2006.

Eric Martlew: Following on from that, does my hon. Friend agree that the reality is that, although the SRA has put a plan out to consultation, there are great worries that the money and the resources will not be there due to the speculation over the weekend? Can he confirm that the moneys will be there?

David Jamieson: My hon. Friend knows that a huge investment is being made in that line—a total of #10 billion. He refers to stories that were in the newspapers over the weekend. Those who have been invited to bid for the new franchises have been asked what they can provide at a lower rate of public subsidy. They have also been asked what they can provide at the same and at a greater rate. Unfortunately, the only story we saw in the newspapers was about cutting those subsidies.

Transport Links (Eastern Region)

Barbara Follett: What plans his Department has to improve east-west transport links in the eastern region.

John Spellar: East-west transport links in the east of England are being investigated by the London to south midlands multi-modal study, which is nearing completion. The final report will be published early in the new year. We will consider the regional planning body's recommendations on the study and make a further announcement on how they will be implemented in due course.

Barbara Follett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for the #145 million that the eastern region received in last week's local transport settlement, but is he aware that none of that money went towards improving east-west transport links? Will he bear that in mind in making future allocations, particularly as there is an urgent need for those links to bring employment to the Suffolk coastal towns?

John Spellar: My hon. Friend is aware that we are considering not just the immediate area in London and the south midlands, but the area surrounding Ipswich, not least because of the connections out to the east coast ports. We need to wait for the outcome of the multi-modal study and, of course, the views of the regional planning body. I will certainly take account of her views when we come to that consideration and hope also that she will make representations at that time.

Peter Lilley: Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of allowing, let alone financing, the railway and motorway from Luton to Stevenage, which the Luton airport operators have said would be necessary if their expansion plans were approved and which would destroy the environment in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett)? It would probably end in her back garden. Will he also confirm that the real way to stop unnecessary cross-county transport and travel is to focus airport growth in a minimum of hub airports rather than unnecessarily expanding airports such as Luton?

John Spellar: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to prejudge not one consultation, but two. I need to await the outcome of both consultations before I can come to a view.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Public Appointments

Tom Harris: What work is being undertaken by his Department to encourage younger people to seek a public appointment.

Jeff Ennis: What progress has been made by his Department in increasing the number of disabled people seeking public appointments.

Douglas Alexander: The Government are committed to increasing diversity in public appointments and value the contribution that young people and disabled people can make. That is why we are taking a range of initiatives, from citizenship education in secondary schools to encouraging departments to publicise public appointments in journals such as Disability Now and Disability Times.

Tom Harris: Given the subject matter of this question, it is appropriate that my hon. Friend is answering it. Does he agree that far too few young people express an interest in public service? Is not there a danger that, unless we can convince younger people that their opinions and experience are valued, their disengagement with the political process will only accelerate?

Douglas Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. Engaging young people in the political process is a challenge not only for the Government, but for all political parties. One of the particular challenges that we face is that only 10 to 15 per cent. of public appointments come up every year. We have made some progress on that, but we can make further progress, especially with regard to young people.

Jeff Ennis: Has the Minister's Department liaised with disability organisations on this important issue? What can it do to speed up the process so that at long last public bodies are truly representative of society?

Douglas Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Cabinet Office and the equality unit have held discussions on these specific areas. We are keen to increase the number of adverts placed in journals that address the needs of particular communities, including the disabled.

Hilton Dawson: I commend to my hon. Friend the work of A National Voice, which is the national organisation for young people in care. It explodes many of the myths about young people in care. Will he assure me that such organisations will be fully involved in the work to develop and improve the care system and on the Green Paper on services for children at risk?

Douglas Alexander: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's observations on the care system, and I will ensure that my colleagues in government are fully appraised of the work of the organisation of which he speaks.

Open Source Software

Richard Allan: What progress he has made in implementing his Department's policy for open source software.

Douglas Alexander: We have jointly established a group to raise awareness of the policy and to build expertise in software procurement. The Cabinet Office effectively promotes and is active in its deployment of the open source software policy.
	Some recent examples of public sector usage of OSS include the Department of Trade's Small Business Service, the Meteorological Office and West Yorkshire police. Those organisations are either using or piloting open source software for their operational use.

Richard Allan: The Minister deserves credit for his open source policy. Will he confirm that it will apply in full to the national health service, which is a major purchaser of IT services and could benefit from acquiring the rights to bespoke software and deploying it openly among the developer community? Has he been able to reach agreement on his policy of using open source software as the default exploitation route for Government-funded research and development software?

Douglas Alexander: I welcome the hon. Gentleman, who is now dealing with these issues, to his new position on the Front Bench. I shall make a couple of general observations and then address the specific question of the health service. We always maintain an interest in best value for money solutions, be they OSS or other types of software. We are also determined to remove reliance on individual IT suppliers, and the Office of Government Commerce is taking forward a range of work in this area. The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that I discussed IT matters with the Secretary of State for Health this morning.

Brian White: One perception about open source software is that it is less secure than proprietary software, but that is not true. What steps is the Minister taking to promote the security of IT systems across government, particularly those using OSS?

Douglas Alexander: I know of the expertise of my hon. Friend in this area, and it goes without saying that the security of Government systems is vital. We are taking active steps on a monthly and ongoing basis to keep appraised of the latest IT security challenges that we face. Properly configured open source software can be at least as secure as proprietary systems; in fact, at the moment OSS is subject to fewer attacks than are alternative forms of software. However, this is an area of ongoing work for the Government.

John Redwood: Has the Minister examined the use of open source software to solve a very big Government problem: their inability to answer letters in anything less than two or three months? Would it not be a good idea to examine how to get much better standards of performance in serving us and our constituents?

Douglas Alexander: One of the challenges relating to software systems is the legacy issue, and one such legacy that we encountered after 1997 was the slowness of Departments in responding to letters. Work is now being undertaken by each Whitehall Department to ensure that letters are responded to at an appropriate time.

Civil Service (Recruitment)

Adrian Bailey: What steps he is taking to ensure equality of opportunity in recruitment to the civil service.

Douglas Alexander: The Government remain strongly committed to equality of opportunity, and to creating a civil service that is fully representative of the community that it serves. Government Departments have delegated responsibility for most recruitment, but they have set themselves challenging diversity targets.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply. What advice can he give to young unemployed members of the ethnic minority community in my constituency on how best to improve their chances of being recruited to the civil service, both regionally and nationally?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A range of community organisations is receiving direct sponsorship to encourage under-represented groups to apply for work in the civil service. One example that may be of interest to him is Black Britain—it can be found at blackbritain.co.uk—an online business that provides black communities with information on jobs across Departments in Whitehall.

Eric Forth: Does the Minister agree that, in talking about equality in this context, he should be equally concerned with quality? If he cannot explain today what a Xrepresentative" civil service actually means, can he give us an absolute assurance that, when it comes to recruitment to the civil service, merit will always come above all else?

Douglas Alexander: I would hope that that is not a contentious point on the Floor of the House, but it could be so for those Opposition Members who have no interest in building up the public sector and the civil service in particular. We maintain our ambition of merit and equality of access to the civil service, and we see no contradiction between drawing talent from the widest possible pool across the country, and ensuring excellence in the public realm in the United Kingdom.

Angela Eagle: It is interesting to note that the Opposition seem to think that there is such a contradiction. I congratulate the Government on the work that they are doing in this area, but I ask my hon. Friend to recommit his Department to driving forward equal opportunities in respect of gender, ethnic minorities and disability—across the whole piece—in order to make the civil service more representative of the people that it serves.

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend makes some vital points. Of course, within the civil service there are targets not just for women and for ethnic minorities, but for disabled citizens; however, along with those targets we have also taken forward streams of work that are attracting non-traditional entrants. As the work of the civil service in relation to the new deal and modern apprenticeships shows, many new routes of access are now available to people who perhaps had not previously considered serving the public interest in the civil service.

Civil Emergency Contingency Planning

Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the organisation of civil emergency contingency planning.

Douglas Alexander: Within the Cabinet Office, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, has ministerial responsibility for civil emergency contingency planning. He is in regular contact with ministerial colleagues on civil contingency issues, both within formal committee meetings and on an ad hoc basis.

Anne McIntosh: As the Minister will be aware, the emergency planning college is situated at the Hawkhills campus near Easingwold in my constituency. Who is responsible for delivering contingency planning? What should Members of Parliament do in the event of a terrorist attack on the House?

Douglas Alexander: My noble Friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston recently visited that college, and heard about the important work being taken forward there. I pay tribute to that work today. The Minister responsible for the protection and safety of UK citizens is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He is in charge of three Cabinet Sub-Committees, and he co-ordinates the work of Government not just in one locality but across the country.

Occupational and Private Pensions

Andrew Smith: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government Green Paper entitled XSimplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement".
	Decisions on pensions are some of the most important of our lives. Since coming to office in 1997, this Government have faced three specific challenges on pensions—of affordability, pensioner poverty and expectations. Rising longevity poses important challenges for the affordability of pensions systems right across the developed world. The old age dependency ratio is expected to more than double in the EU, with even greater increases in other developed economies such as Japan.
	It is good news that people live longer, but if people want their standards of living to continue to rise in retirement, they must either save more or work longer, or a mixture of both. The UK is in a stronger position to meet this demographic challenge than most other developed countries, not only because our dependency ratio is expected to increase by half as much as the European average, but because of the choices that the Government have made over the past five years to ensure that the UK pensions system remains affordable.
	We rejected demands to link the basic state pension to earnings, because that short-term solution would not have been sustainable over the long term. Instead, because of our targeted approach, projections show that public spending on pensions in this country will remain stable over the next 50 years at around 5 per cent. of gross domestic product. In contrast, EU forecasts show that other European countries such as Germany and Spain will require increases of between 40 per cent. and 80 per cent. in public spending on pensions over the next 50 years in order to meet their pension liabilities.
	That same targeted approach has enabled us to meet the second challenge, of pensioner poverty. Since 1997, we have strengthened the foundation of basic state support through the introduction of the minimum income guarantee and, from next October, the pension credit. As a result, next year the poorest third of pensioners will be on average #1,500 a year better off.
	I can tell the House that the Government continue to reject calls from the pensions industry and others that all targeted support for pensioners should be scrapped and instead added to the basic state pension. Such a move would mean an increase in the maximum basic entitlement of #10 a week for some pensioners, but at the expense of a cut of #17 a week for the poorest pensioners. That would amount to taking resources from the poorest pensioners and redistributing them to the richest, and it is not our way.
	Over the past five years, as we have taken action to tackle pensioner poverty, the pension contributions of people on higher incomes have risen by 40 per cent., increasing the incomes that they can expect in retirement. The challenge facing society today, therefore, has to do with the expectations of middle-income earners—people who expect continuing rising standards of living in retirement, but who to achieve that will either have to save more or work longer, or both.
	Evidence shows that perhaps 3 million such people are currently not saving enough for their retirement, and others may not be saving enough to provide the pensions that they want. At the same time, occupational schemes have come under pressure from rising costs and increasing complexity. Some employers are closing schemes or cutting the amount of contributions, and many people are leaving the work force earlier.
	There is a choice to be made on how we meet these challenges. Some believe that a radical strengthening of the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work and that the United Kingdom should move beyond it, for example, adopting further compulsory pension contributions. We believe that the partnership between Government, individuals, employers and the financial services industry has long been a strength of the pensions system in the United Kingdom, and that the proposals we are setting out today will renew that partnership and reaffirm the responsibilities of each member.
	Our proposals show how, if all partners play their part, the voluntarist approach can work to maximum effect. The test will be whether, with this radical strengthening of our approach, employers and employees can rise to the challenge voluntarily, or whether we will need to introduce more compulsion. In a voluntarist system, over and above the level of support provided by the state, individuals are best placed to judge their own long-term savings needs and aspirations for retirement; but the success of that approach rests on the information and understanding that people have, and the clarity of the options open to them. The approach will fail if the complexity of products and the cost of financial advice deter people from saving.
	Since 1997 we have taken action to rebuild trust in the financial services industry, to clear up pensions mis-selling—[Hon. Members: XOh!"]—for which Opposition Members ought to apologise—and to introduce new savings products such as individual savings accounts and stakeholder pensions, opening up new opportunities for people to save. For too many people, however, pensions planning—as we all know—has remained an incomprehensible maze.
	As I told the House in July,
	XPensions simplification has to be at the heart of any strategy to encourage greater pension provision". —[Official Report, 11 July 2002; Vol. 388, c. 1053.]
	Nowhere is that truer than in taxation of pensions, which has grown complex enough to challenge even the experts. There are currently no fewer than eight sets of tax rules governing pensions—each with its own annual limits on contributions and benefits—imposing unnecessary inflexibility, driving up costs and, worst of all, discouraging people from saving.
	Today I can announce a radical simplification of the rules. We propose to sweep away the eight existing pensions tax regimes with their associated limits on annual contributions and benefits. We propose to replace them with a single lifetime limit assessed at the point of retirement, and we propose to set that limit at #1.4 million. The lifetime limit will be complemented by a light-touch compliance regime based on an annual limit of #200,000. That limit will not affect the majority of people. Further details are contained in an Inland Revenue consultation document published today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. As my right hon. Friend announced in the pre-Budget report, the tax-free lump sum will remain, as will existing tax reliefs for pension contributions by employees, the self-employed and employers.
	These proposals will help people to make clear, confident decisions. They will encourage more saving, and enable more people to build up a bigger tax-free lump sum. They mean far greater individual choice and flexibility in terms of when and how much to save for a pension. Over 99 per cent. of the population will be able to save more, with tax incentives, than is possible under current rules. The proposals will also reduce administrative burdens on employers and pension providers alike. Taken with the other measures that I am announcing today, they could save employers between #150 million and #200 million a year in pensions administration.
	We will match this radical simplification of pensions taxation by breaking down other barriers to pension saving. We will provide individuals with more information about their own circumstances, and our proposals will increase the availability of state pension forecasts and extend the coverage of combined state and occupational pension forecasts. We will promote total benefit statements in the workplace, and highlight the additional value that tax relief contributes to saving in a pension.
	To broaden access to advice, we will work with the financial services industry to develop mass-market financial advice in high street banks, and will consult on options for a possible requirement on employers who do not provide pensions to provide financial advice free of charge through the workplace. I can confirm to the House that we will implement the recommendations of the Sandler report to make it easier to save through simpler products, dramatically stripping out regulation and sales costs.
	We also propose to offer the self-employed the right to opt in to the state second pension. I can also announce that we will increase product choice and flexibility in the annuities market by consulting on proposals to allow limited-period and value-protected annuities.
	The proposals that we are setting out today will also reaffirm the role and responsibilities of employers in the pension partnership. Many employers recognise the important benefits to recruitment, retention and staff motivation that good pension provision brings. But, elsewhere, some employers have been reducing their financial commitment and contribution to workplace pensions, causing anxiety and damaging confidence in pension provision. There is a difficult balance to strike, here. We want to increase member protection without imposing burdens on employers.
	I can announce today that we propose to create a new proactive pensions regulator, to focus on schemes where there is a high risk of fraud, bad governance or maladministration. We are also setting out proposals for a fairer sharing of assets when schemes close, with more priority for workers closer to retirement or those with more years of contributions. We propose stronger protection for members where employers wind up schemes, and the capping of provisions to prevent executives abandoning ship and taking the lifeboat with them. We recognise, as good employers already do, the vital interest that employees have in their pension arrangements, so we propose requiring employee consultation before schemes are changed.
	We can only expect to enhance protection for employees if we make it simpler and easier for employers to run schemes. Following Alan Pickering's report, we propose radically to reduce the regulatory burden on occupational schemes by simplifying the contracting out rules, including reforming the reference scheme test and ending restrictions on how and at what age contracted-out rights can be drawn. We will also replace the minimum funding requirement with scheme-specific funding requirements, saving companies #80 million a year. We will also consider allowing employers to make membership a condition of employment. I can also announce our aim to consolidate all pensions legislation into a single pensions Act.
	These radical reforms mean big cuts in the administrative burdens on employers and schemes. We will also work with a new employer-led taskforce, including trade union membership, to identify and promote good practice.
	Enabling people to work a few years longer can make a huge difference to retirement income. The 1980s and early 1990s saw the employment rate for older male workers decline. That trend has been reversed, with 900,000 more people over 50 now in jobs than in 1997. However, we must go further, by doing away with inflexible and outdated approaches to retirement. Our proposals will allow people to choose to work for longer if they want to do so.
	We propose to promote flexibility in retirement by building on the success of the new deal 50-plus; legislating against age discrimination; ending compulsory retirement ages; and raising the normal pension age for most groups in the public services to 65 for all new entrants. To smooth the cliff edge between work and retirement, we propose to allow people to carry on working while drawing an occupational pension; and to improve the incentives for those who want to work past state pension age, we will bring forward increases to the extra state pension that people get by deferring. That means that a single pensioner who has accumulated #100 a week state pension and second pension entitlement could choose to take their pension at 70 and get #150 a week instead.
	We are also consulting on the chance for those who defer to take a lump sum instead of the enhanced pension. For a single pensioner, that would be a one-off payment of #20,000 on top of their normal pension, or #30,000 for a couple.
	I have one further announcement to make about the state pension age. We have received representations for a significant change, with persuasive arguments to move to a higher state pension age, releasing resources for use elsewhere in the pensions system. I have carefully considered that option, but have concluded that it would disproportionately impact on the poorest workers—those most dependent on the state pension, many of whom have had hard working lives.
	As well as being forced to work for longer, those people would, because of lower life expectancy, see a bigger than average slice of their retirement taken away. I have therefore decided that we should not raise the state pension age. Our measures to give people far greater choice about flexible retirement are the right way to address the issue—not raising the state pension age.
	The proposals that we are setting out today seek to renew the pensions partnership in the UK. They show how, with all partners playing their part, the voluntarist approach can be made to work to maximum effect. As I have said, some people believe that the voluntarist approach to pension provision can never be made to work, and that the UK should adopt a system of compulsory pension contributions.
	There is a choice. The case for compulsion has not yet been made, but because of the magnitude of such a decision and the need to help to build a wider consensus on the way forward, I am today establishing an independent pensions commission, reporting to me as Secretary of State on whether the current voluntary system is sufficient to ensure that employers and employees rise to the challenge. I can tell the House that Adair Turner, former director general of the CBI, has accepted my invitation to chair that commission. It will report to me regularly on whether there is a case for moving beyond voluntarism.
	The time has come for all the partners in the pensions system—the Government, employers, employees and financial services—to rise to the pensions challenge, and I commend the statement to the House.

David Willetts: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for his statement? It was due in the autumn and it comes not a moment too soon. What is at stake is nothing less than the prospects for a decent retirement for millions of our fellow citizens.
	This time, the Government must get their pensions policy right. They have tried many times before. Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many consultation documents on pensions the Government have produced since 1997? When I tabled a question about how many documents there had been, the Department replied that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. That is not a good sign—on my reckoning there are at least 38. In fact, I have some of the previous consultation documents here, and, as they have poured out of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, the crisis in our funded pensions has got steadily worse.
	Does the Secretary of State recognise how serious the problem is? Does he realise that the speed at which pension funds are closing to new members has doubled in the past year? Does he know that more than half Britain's leading companies have now closed their pension schemes to new members? Does he know that the number of people who are retiring with an occupational pension is going down and that the number of pensioners claiming means-tested benefits is going up?
	Not all the causes are under the Government's control, but that makes it all the more important that Governments get right the things that they do control. Instead, we have had the Chancellor's notorious #5 billion a year grab on our pension funds; another #1.5 billion a year taken from our pensions because contracted-out rebates are too low; and nine out of 10 stakeholder pensions with not a penny in them.
	So why did not the Secretary of State come to the House of Commons this afternoon and apologise on behalf of the Government for turning what was one of our great post-war successes into an economic and social disaster? There was no recognition of the scale of the crisis, and there was certainly no strategy for getting out of it. Because they have not got a solution, they pretend there is no problem.
	The Secretary of State did not even repeat the Government's original objective, published in a previous pensions Green Paper, to increase from 40 to 60 per cent. the proportion of pensioners' incomes that comes from funded savings. Are they doing so badly that they have given that up altogether? Will he offer any estimate of the increase in pension savings that he expects as a result of today's announcement?
	I warn the Secretary of State that he appears to base his arguments on the assumption that flows of savings into our pension funds have grown by 40 per cent. since 1997. He has already had to write me one letter of apology for producing incorrect statistics on the size of our pension flow, and I warn him that he might have to write a second one if he uses such statistics.
	We will look carefully at the Secretary of State's proposals in the days and weeks ahead, but there seem to be too many old ideas rehashed and relaunched. Of course we want flexible retirement, but what the Secretary of State has announced—or rather reannounced—today has been announced by the Government five times already. In fact, it was in the original pensions Green Paper, published in December 1998. We do not need more consultation; we need action.
	Yes, we need to offer more protection to employees who have been working for a company for years and find their hopes for a decent pension dashed. In fact, the Government had a consultation document on that as well—XSecurity for Occupational Pensions". It is more than two years old and nothing has been done. Meanwhile, the workers at Maersk and ASW, as well as those in dozens of other schemes that have wound up, have paid the price.
	We agree with the Secretary of State that it would be better to offer people more flexibility in taking the state pension, but, again, his proposals are not new. Will he confirm that Parliament passed legislation to make such changes in 1995, in our Pensions Act? That was when the Labour party was arguing for a pension age of 63, by the way. Of course we understand the need for consensus and stability to encourage long-term saving, and we will support his measures where we can, but it is no use pretending that what he has announced today will somehow reverse our pension crisis. It is too little, too late.
	We believe that the burden of regulation and red tape on pensions is too great. That is why we supported Alan Pickering's inquiry, but it is typical of the Government that they produced another 251 pages of regulation even after they had introduced the deregulation review. Can the Secretary of State tell us more about the basis on which the new simplified tax regime will be constructed? He has referred to the eight tax regimes that already exist, but it appears as though he is adding a ninth to apply in future alongside the eight that will continue to apply in respect of previous contributions. So will he confirm whether he will be keeping the 1,300 pages of tax regulations for contributions already made and adding another tax regime on top?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that we need better incentives for people to save for their pension instead of cutting back on the incentives that already exist in the tax system? Will there be losers in the proposals that he has put forward today? If so, how many will there be, and how much will they lose? Can he give a cast-iron assurance that the Chancellor is not using the simplification exercise as an excuse for another stealth tax?
	The other day, the Secretary of State said that he was not offering a quick fix. I agree with him on that. His proposals are certainly not quick and they will not fix the problem either. The truth is that British pensions are in deep crisis. Millions of our fellow citizens face an impoverished retirement. All that has happened while the Government have been consulting and reviewing. At the end of that process, British pensions are in a far worse state than they were before it started.
	The Secretary of State could have come to the House and admitted that the old approach was not working and that a radically new one was needed. We need new flexible ways of saving that match the way people live their lives today. We need a far simpler benefits regime for pensioners and we need to reverse the spread of means-tested benefits. Why will the Secretary of State not recognise that problem and do something about it? Without that, there is a gaping hole at the heart of his pensions proposals. He would have had support in all parts of the House for a bold reform, but he missed that opportunity. Instead, he offered us more of the same.
	Today's statement simply fails to match the scale of the crisis in the savings of our country. Governments should encourage people to save, but, under this Government, savings are penalised as they never have been before. Pension funds which only five years ago seemed solid and prosperous are now insecure and under threat. After today, and after this missed opportunity, millions of people will face a new era of financial insecurity, knowing that this Government, their mistakes and their wasted opportunities are to blame. Will the Secretary of State start his response today by apologising to the millions of people whose pensions have lost value as a result of the Government's policies?

Andrew Smith: What was abundantly clear from that statement is that there is a gaping hole where any alternative policies from the Opposition ought to be. It was very clear that, even in the time that the hon. Gentleman had to study our Green Paper and my statement, he had not grasped the sweep and radicalism of our tax simplification. It does not add a ninth tax regime—that is the sort of thing that the Tories used to do. It scraps the eight and brings in a new simple regime that will encourage and promote saving where the Conservatives—as well as presiding over pension mis-selling—erected, often with the very best of intentions, walls of complexity around pensions and long-term saving, which serve this country very badly. The Conservatives should support not only the simplification of taxation but the stunning reforms that we are carrying through on contracting out the reference scheme test and the guaranteed minimum pension. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is nodding—he at least realises the radicalism of what we are doing.
	The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) spoke about the ending of the tax credit and taking #5 billion out of pension funds. But the country will know that the Conservatives' attack is worthless and that they are shedding crocodile tears, as there is no commitment on their part to reversing that position. If it is doing such damage, why has the shadow Chancellor not pledged that his party will reverse it?
	The hon. Gentleman, as he has done before, referred to what he called means-tested benefits. As we all know, that is Conservative code for abolishing the pension credit, the measure that we are introducing and which, from next October will reward—as opposed to the Conservative party in government who penalised—those with modest occupational pensions and savings. The Opposition are proposing to take an average #8 a week off half the pensioner households in the country. They should support our proposals.
	I welcome one thing—it is important—that the hon. Gentleman said, namely, that on the simplification proposals where we can build consensus, we will. There is a particular responsibility on pensions Ministers and spokespeople of all parties to endeavour to establish the broadest possible consensus on this issue so that we can together build the foundations for long-term saving and security for older people. I am pleased to see that some Conservative Back Benchers are nodding, even if those on the Front Bench are not.
	The other parts of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were muddled, damaging and would hit the poorest hardest. That is not compassionate conservatism but the same old Tory Front-Bench view, which is more extreme than ever.

Steve Webb: If there were an offence of mis-selling Government pension policies, the Secretary of State should be bang to rights this afternoon. It sounded like an Arthur Daley scheme. He says that he will reward pensioners who defer their state pension by five years and go without their #4,000 a year state pension for that time, but what will they get in the end? Only #20,000. Well, that is a great incentive. The Secretary of State has failed to address the tough choices that needed to be addressed. A company such as BAE Systems, which is a large employer, projects a #1 billion deficit in its scheme in three years' time. There was nothing in the statement that was up to the scale of that problem. Is there anything that would match a #1 billion deficit in one scheme?
	What about the position of women? I am pleased that, finally, there is a chapter about women in the document. We have put women's pensions back on the political agenda, but I have read that chapter and it is empty. It has nothing for the women who feel cheated by their pension provision. In the past two days, more than 150 women have written to me describing their anger at their pension position. What have the Government got that is concrete for women other than more information? What will they deliver for the needs of women?
	What about the hope that people will save more? The Government have ducked the tough choice. They have set up a commission to consider the matter, but presumably it will have to wait until the issue has had years to run and then it might recommend compulsion. That would take years more, so it could be 10 years before we make sure that people save. Hoping that people will save has failed. We need to make sure that Government, employees and employers all put money into pension schemes for people on middle and higher earnings. If we do not do that, another decade will be wasted.
	The Secretary of State rightly talks about consensus, but that implies that all sides are willing to move. Sitting next to him is a Chancellor who is so wedded to mass means-testing that he is in a minority of one. If the Government will not give ground on mass means-testing, what scope is there for consensus? We have heard about a task force, a commission and a proactive regulator, but we have not had the tough choices for a crisis. This is a missed opportunity.

Andrew Smith: The hon. Gentleman talks about mass means-testing. However, the truth is that, with the pension credit, we are rewarding people on modest occupational and savings incomes. Like the Tories, he would obviously take us back to pound-for-pound withdrawal, which penalises those on the lowest incomes.It is difficult to take seriously proposals on public spending from a party that, since the general election alone, has made 80 promises for extra public expenditure.
	The hon. Gentleman attempted to deride the opportunity for people who defer taking their pension to receive a #20,000 or #30,000 lump sum. The matter is out for consultation, so, if he thinks that the sums are wrong or that the figures should be actuarially adjusted, he can make recommendations to that affect. However, does he not realise the radical potential of allowing people who have never before in their lives had access to that sort of money to have access to the sort of lump sums that people on much higher incomes in much more generous schemes can have? Why not give those people that choice, which has hitherto been confined to the rich?
	I acknowledge the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman addresses the needs of women in the pension system. He is right to raise that issue. As he says, we have dedicated a chapter in the Green Paper to it. He asks what we are doing for women pensioners. Does he not realise that the majority of the beneficiaries of the very minimum income guarantee and pension credit that he attacks are women? Does he not realise that in introducing the state second pension, the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries will be women, including carers and those with broken work records? It is difficult to take the hon. Gentleman's criticisms seriously when he does not recognise the huge steps forward that our policies have represented for women and other pensioners.

Frank Field: May I welcome unreservedly the Secretary of State's statement on simplification, especially the move towards a fairer winding-up system, and on getting those with annuities a better deal? Does he accept, however, that his statement will be viewed as the last throw in making the voluntary system work? As the voluntary system is failing to give a growing proportion of pensioners a minimum adequate pension, does his Green Paper list the criteria by which we will judge the success or otherwise of his strategy? Can we expect to see success, or failure, this side of the election?

Andrew Smith: I thank my right hon. Friend for welcoming the simplification of the provisions on winding-up, the greater security that we are extending to people and the improvements to the annuities regime. Like other hon. Members, I respect his expertise and long-standing interest in such matters. Indeed, the idea that we could give an option on wind-up to pensioners based on the length of their time in a pension scheme is something that he proposed, as we acknowledge in the Green Paper.
	My right hon. Friend says that our proposal might be seen as a last throw for the voluntary system. Let me make it clear, as I did in my statement, that by strengthening the voluntary system through introducing measures to simplify the regime, by enhancing protection for scheme members and pensioners through the radical reform of taxation, and by cutting costs on pension schemes and employers, we hold out the prospect of delivering our promise and renewing and refreshing the partnership on pensions.
	We are equally clear in the Green Paper, however, that that has to be reviewed. My right hon. Friend asks about the criteria for that. They must include the trends in pension provision and long-term saving. The review must be based on an assessment of whether each partner to the pensions partnership meets its responsibilities. That has to be part of the test. It is why we need a regular review and why Adair Turner, who leads the commission, will report regularly to me. If the evidence shows that we need to move beyond the voluntary system—for example, by additional compulsion—we have a duty to make that clear to the country.

Peter Lilley: The Secretary of State will know that I welcomed the Government's commitment to increase by up to 60 per cent. the share of pensions liabilities which will be met by funded private pensions. Since then, however, the crisis in private pension schemes, aggravated by the pensions tax and the disincentive effects of increasing means-testing, has moved us in the opposite direction. Although I welcome some small measures announced in the statement, nothing in it is commensurate with the scale of the challenge or the crisis facing private pensions. Is he still committed to that 60 per cent. target?

Andrew Smith: That indeed remains our objective. It is why the Green Paper sets out all those proposals for radical simplification. There is a sweep and a stunning simplicity to what we propose, not only on tax, but on the reforms on contracting out the reference scheme test and the rest of it. Coupled with stronger protection for scheme members, that is the way to renew confidence in private pension provision. Of course, I share the right hon. Gentleman's goal of providing a higher proportion through the private sector. With our proposals, we can renew confidence so that we move in that direction.

Terry Rooney: My right hon. Friend should be wary of building consensus with people responsible both for raiding SERPS and for the personal pensions mis-selling scandal. Does he agree that over the years all Governments have deceived people about the real cost of providing a decent pension? In the light of that, does he think that a lifetime tax-free limit of #1.4 million, equivalent to #35,000 a year in someone's working life, is the right way to use tax rebates from the Government?

Andrew Smith: I hear what my hon. Friend has said about consensus, but I genuinely believe that there must be durability in pension regimes and confidence in pensions that should transcend individual Parliaments and, indeed, individual Governments. We are all responsible for trying to make this work in the best interests of the country and future generations of pensioners—I know that my hon. Friend will want to do so. As for the #1.4 million limit, all that we have done is translate into a lifetime limit the current maximum entitlement on tax relief. That is the right thing to do so as not to disappoint people who have planned their retirement on their expectations of the existing system.

Archy Kirkwood: There is much that the House will welcome in the Secretary of State's statement this afternoon, and much that will repay careful study. However, there will be disappointment about some of the longer-term aspects of what he said. Is the independent pensions commission, to be chaired by Adair Turner, to be limited merely, if I can put it that way, to the question of voluntarism versus compulsion, or is the Secretary of State prepared to expand its remit so that Mr. Turner can consider longer-term cases and continue to give advice about the way in which the pensions industry needs to be reconfigured in the longer term?

Andrew Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I greatly appreciate the work that the Select Committee is currently undertaking and, as part of the consultative process on the Green Paper, I shall look with great interest at its recommendations and the outcomes of its work. The commission's proposed terms of reference are set out clearly in the Green Paper. First, it will make an assessment of the information that it needs to do its job. I know that the hon. Gentleman, like others in the House, has questioned the adequacy of statistics on pensions in the past—the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) referred to that. It is therefore important that an accurate baseline assessment is made. Having done so, the commission will assess long-term trends in savings—not just pensions, but other savings vehicles as well—and how well various partners in the pensions partnership are meeting their responsibilities, and will make recommendations accordingly.

Anne Begg: I welcome the suggestion of a flexible retirement age and the rejection of any increase in the state retirement age. There is certainly a job to be done by the Government and employers in encouraging more people to work until the existing retirement age but, to do so, they need to tackle the issue of age discrimination in the workplace.

Andrew Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome. She is absolutely right—good as it is to enable people to work beyond 65 if they wish to, the really important thing is to get more people to participate in the work force up to the age of 65. Building on the work that we have already done in the Age Positive Campaign, which has turned the tide—900,000 more people over 50 are in work now than in 1997—we should move on from the Green Paper to introduce legislation to prohibit age discrimination, as well as introducing other measures to enable and encourage people to carry on working where they are able to, and want to.

John Butterfill: We would all welcome any simplification of the tax rules, which will help some employers in particular. May I press the Secretary of State on a couple of matters? First, how will the proposals interface with all the legacy schemes introduced by the state—graduated pensions, SERPS, the guaranteed minimum pension and state second pensions? Will all those still be burdens on employers, as they are on our own pension scheme, as I know to my cost and that of the other trustees? Secondly, will the changes that the right hon. Gentleman is making in taxation effectively be retrospective? If so, will there not be some substantial losers, particularly those in pre-1970 schemes where, despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, there were no cash limits on what could be put in? Finally, will the Secretary of State and the Chancellor look at the possibility of allowing the first 25 per cent. of an annuity to be taken tax free, where the annuitant puts all of their pot into a pension, as many poorer pensioners should? At present all they can do is take a tax-free lump sum, which may be to their disadvantage.

Andrew Smith: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters and welcome his recognition of the fact that the simplification measures will be of benefit to employers. With reference to the interface with the state system, I think I made it clear that the basic state pension, our proposals for the pension credit and the state second pension remain. There will, though, be a considerable gain to schemes and scheme administrators through the radical simplification of the measures in respect of the guaranteed minimum pension which, as he knows, is a great cause of complexity and cost. As regards the rights that people have under previous regimes, all accumulated rights will be respected and honoured. In so far as there will be losers, there will be disappointed expectations on the part of as few as 1,000 people, who might have been expecting to go beyond the limits that we are confirming with the new lifetime approach.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for millions of ordinary people on average and lower incomes, a universal state pension at a much higher level than it is now will be the only way to avoid poverty in old age? Does he therefore accept the view expressed by his own adviser in The Times today that we should proceed towards a much better state pension without means-testing and based on compulsory contributions from both employers and employees?

Andrew Smith: I addressed that argument in my statement. I acknowledge and share my hon. Friend's concern that those on the poorest incomes should gain security in their retirement through the state system, as well as through their own efforts. However, as I spelled out, the arithmetic is such that if we were to wrap up the minimum income guarantee in the basic state pension, yes, the basic state pension could go up by #10 a week, but those getting the minimum income guarantee—the poorest pensioners—would lose out to the tune of #17 a week. That is the arithmetic, which confirms that we are right not only to have increased the basic state pension, as the foundation, by more than inflation and by more than earnings, but to build on top of it an improved state second pension that will help 18 million people—many of them on low incomes, many of them carers or disabled people—as well as bringing in the pension credit, which will reward modest pensions and savings income, whereas it was penalised in the past.

James Arbuthnot: I welcome some of the things that the Secretary of State said, particularly about simplification of the tax regime and simplification of pensions in general. Does he recognise that some of the things that the Government have done in relation to introducing a minimum income guarantee and pension credit on the one hand, and on the other pledging themselves to the target of 60 per cent. from private funding, which I was pleased to hear him reconfirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), the former Secretary of State, give the impression that the Government did not really know in which direction overall they were moving? Will the Secretary of State now commit himself to doing his utmost to reduce means-testing, and if so, what target would he introduce for reducing means-testing?

Andrew Smith: I accept and welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges the benefits and gains from the statement and the Green Paper proposals that we have set out. On the core of his question, I believe that there is indeed a consistency of purpose in what we are doing. That purpose is to use the available resources to the best possible effect. Yes, we should help all pensioners, as we are doing—on average, they will be #1,150 better off next year in real terms—while giving greatest help to those who need it most in the #1,500 of benefit that will go to the poorest third of pensioners. At the same time, as we are proposing today, we must simplify and reform occupational and private pensions saving so that those who can afford to make more provision for their retirement or want to contemplate a longer working life can do so. At the interface between the two, we have the pension credit, whose great strength is that it gets us away from the pound-for-pound withdrawal of lower levels of saved and pension income to which I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's Front Bench and the Liberals would return us.

Sandra Osborne: I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is not ruling out compulsion in the longer term if the voluntary approach does not work. I also thank the Minister for Pensions in particular for listening to the concerns of former United Engineering Forgings employees in my constituency, who stand to lose out greatly on their pension entitlement as the company has gone into receivership. How will the proposals announced by the Secretary of State affect those workers, and how will they help them?

Andrew Smith: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's record of work on behalf of the constituents to whom she refers. We are consulting on proposals in the Green Paper that will strengthen protection for workers on the winding up of a company. In the case of solvent employers, we are consulting on options either for a full or partial buy-out of accumulated pension rights, and for insolvent employers, we are considering the opportunity of using a clearing house to get them better value and annuities that protect their future income. As the TUC has urged, we are also consulting on opportunities for mutual insurance, including the possibility of a central discontinuance fund.

Angela Browning: The more the Secretary of State encourages flexibility for people to work beyond the state retirement age, with which I have no problem, the more important it will be for him to introduce flexibility in the requirement to take an annuity at the age of 75 for all those products that are money-purchase based. Why has he not reconsidered that issue? At the moment, he needs as much flexibility in the pensions market as he can get.

Andrew Smith: The problem is that what the hon. Lady advocates could be done only at a cost of hundreds of millions of pounds. She and her party have to decide how much of a priority her proposal is. It is important to underline that annuities remain the only means of guaranteeing an income for as long as people live. It is one of the quirks of human nature that people are inclined to underestimate how long they will live. The Green Paper and tax simplification document contain very important proposals that will help prospective annuitants with the introduction of value-protected and limited-period annuities.

Rob Marris: The target used by many commentators and academics in describing what constitutes a reasonable pension is 67 per cent. of final earnings. Does the Secretary of State agree with that target and, if not, what percentage does he suggest?

Andrew Smith: I am very sceptical of the idea that expert commentators, the state or anybody else can specify what the replacement rate or, indeed, the long-term savings rate should be. I think that those decisions are better taken by families and individuals jointly with their employers throughout the country. As I said in my statement, for that to happen, people must have accurate information about their prospects and a simple range of products that they can trust, and they must be incentivised to do the right thing. Our proposals do all of that.

Annabelle Ewing: The Secretary of State has been less than convincing on how the provision of a decent state pension is compatible with the Government's increased reliance on means-testing. Does he accept that means-testing is demeaning, unduly complex, acts as a disincentive to save, has a negative impact on take-up, and hence is failing our pensioners?

Andrew Smith: It is a distortion to refer to the proposal as though it is some old-style measure. Actually, it gets us away from weekly means-testing, with an assessment made every five years. Does the hon. Lady feel demeaned when her tax is assessed on that basis? What is the difference? If we are to make the best use of the limited funds available, it makes sense to give an entitlement that benefits everybody, but to have a system that enables us to get the most help to those who need it most. The logical implication of what the hon. Lady and those who think like her advocate is that we should take money from the poorest pensioners and give it to those who are better off. That does not commend itself to me.

George Mudie: I welcome the Minister strengthening the position of workers when a final salary pension scheme is wound up, but does that mean that he is giving up the ghost on final salary pension schemes, or is there enough in the Green Paper to persuade employers to continue to run them? On shareholders, does anything in the Green Paper increase the 1 per cent. cap in view of the low take-up? If not, what measures are in the Green Paper to increase take-up?

Andrew Smith: We certainly have not given up on final salary pension schemes. Employers, together with their employees, must determine those matters for the future. One welcome implication of our proposals is that employers will have to consult their employees before they change a scheme. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House support that. We shall encourage employers to provide good schemes by cutting administration costs by #150 million to #200 million.
	As has been acknowledged in the industry, the 1 per cent. cap on charges has been of great benefit in driving down the level of charges. We shall consult early next year on the stakeholder suite of products, and evidence on the impact of the cap will be taken into account.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Minister clarify his intentions for the many very small businesses that are struggling for survival? Will there be a lower limit, in terms of annual turnover and the number of employees, below which there will be no requirement to participate in employees' pension schemes?

Andrew Smith: We are consulting on the proposals in the Green Paper precisely to take those views closely into account. Earlier, Conservative Front-Bench Members complained about our consulting. I think that it is right that we consult, so that we take into account the interests of the general public and, importantly, of small businesses as well as larger ones.

Paul Flynn: As it is virtually impossible to convince young people that they will ever grow old and need a pension, and very difficult to persuade young couples in the early furniture-buying, child-rearing days of marriage to make adequate pension contributions, is not the only practical long-term solution a scheme based on compulsory contributions, guaranteed and underwritten by the Government because all parts of the private sector are no longer to be trusted? If compulsion is inevitable, why not have it sooner rather than later?

Andrew Smith: I take my hon. Friend's point about the difficulty of encouraging younger people to save. There are plenty of pressures on them to consume and spend their money in other directions. Our proposals include working in partnership with the Financial Services Authority and the financial services industry to intensify the drive to promote education and improve financial literacy so that people better understand what they need to do to save for the long term. The evidence shows that sending people a combined state and occupational pensions forecast has an impact, even on younger people's saving behaviour. However, the great merit of our lifetime limit on taxing pension contributions is the greater flexibility that it gives people to determine the period in their lives when they want to make the bulk of their savings for retirement.
	My hon. Friend made the point that any compulsory system would have to be underwritten. If it were compulsory to contribute additional sums towards a pension, people would expect the state to stand behind what was guaranteed. That would resemble a tax to many people. I do not perceive much enthusiasm among young people for higher taxation.

Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State knows that self-employment is a growth industry. Many self-employed people in manual and construction industries live their lives according to the proverb that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In the light of past pension mis-selling, and even the occasional failure of Governments to advise women about the reality of their choices, what guidance will be given to self-employed workers to take up a state second pension?

Andrew Smith: We must ensure that the self-employed are a priority for receiving the pension forecasts that we will give out to an increasing number of the working population. Evidence shows that the self-employed are polarised in their savings behaviour between those who have made adequate provision and those whose under-saving is potentially calamitous. It is important that they are alerted to the need to save more.
	The Green Paper contains two pieces of especially good news for the self-employed. First, they will be able to opt into the state second pension. They need to judge for themselves whether to do that. Secondly, our new tax regime will allow much greater flexibility, for example, for people to transfer savings that are in an individual savings account, or released from housing or business equity, into a pension plan later in life that will attract tax relief. That could be especially beneficial to the self-employed.

Candy Atherton: I welcome the Government's intention to legislate against age discrimination and enable older workers to choose when they retire. However, many employers find it difficult to obtain insurance to enable them to continue to employ older workers. Will my right hon. Friend look into that?

Andrew Smith: Yes, I shall be pleased to do that. It is right to record that, in proceeding with our commitment to counter age discrimination, we are building on my hon. Friend's past legislative initiatives.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that we shall return to these matters. I therefore now call the next statement.

Transport Investment Plan

Alistair Darling: With permission, I should like to make a statement on transport investment. Today, I am publishing a report on progress since April 2001 on the 10-year investment plan for transport.
	The plan commits the Government to spending more than #180 billion of public and private investment over 10 years. It is an unprecedented commitment, which will provide stability and increasing spending in the long-term. Maintaining the investment year after year is essential to make up for decades of under-investment and neglect.
	Over 10 years, that means public expenditure of more than #22 billion on strategic roads, #33 billion on the railways and #51 billion on local transport. The plan marks the first time that a Government have been willing to commit themselves to such a level of funding over a long period. The funding makes and will continue to make a genuine difference.
	If we examine other countries' successes in transport, the common factor is sustained investment year after year, decade after decade. That is why we remain committed to updating and rolling forward the plan in 2004 to coincide with the next public expenditure review. It will take account of progress so far and the challenges that have to be met in the years to 2015 and beyond.
	Such long-term commitment and planning is essential to rebuild and maintain the transport infrastructure that we need for continued growth and prosperity. The report sets out the achievements of the first 18 months since the plan came into effect. As I told the House last week, our objective is to improve Britain's rail and road network. We take a balanced approach with investment to tackle congestion, improve reliability and make journeys safer, and to do so in a way that is consistent with our wider social and environmental obligations. I shall set out some of the key points.
	Last week, I announced major investment designed to tackle congestion and improve journey times. Schemes will range from major enhancements of some of our key strategic routes—for example, the M1 and M6—as well as bypasses and smaller schemes to tackle bottlenecks. We have also introduced measures to manage better existing roads, and I also announced further investment in local transport and rail.
	As the report makes clear, the latest analysis shows that there was more traffic in 2000 than had been thought. That, coupled with the fact that economic growth over the next 10 years is projected to be higher than anticipated, means that the forecasts made two years ago almost certainly underestimated the congestion that we face. Without the investment in the 10-year plan, congestion would have continued to rise unchecked. The report shows that we will not only stem that growth, but deliver considerable reductions in the congestion that we would otherwise have seen.
	To tackle congestion, it is necessary to tackle its causes, which is why we are spending more to deal with bottlenecks on the roads system and spending more on public transport. Measures to tackle congestion are beginning to make an impact. Bus use nationally has begun to grow after years of decline and stagnation, light rail use has grown by a third over the past two years and the number of rail passengers has increased by nearly a quarter since 1997. We clearly need to do more, but all that will be possible only because of the commitment to sustained investment year on year. I shall announce further measures next year.
	The House will also wish to know that there has been a 15 per cent. reduction in deaths and serious accidents on roads. For children, there has been a 27 per cent. reduction, which is a tribute to all those who have done so much to improve road safety. On railways, public expenditure is estimated to be #33 billion compared with #29 billion 18 months ago. We are committed to sustaining that investment, as it is essential to improve both reliability and safety, but it is also essential that the industry get a grip of major projects.
	The public rightly expect us to ensure that their money is well spent and that there is rigorous control of costs. Spending in the next few years will rise from #2.1 billion in 2001–02 to #4.3 billion in 2005–06, which means that, although there is #312 million less for the SRA over the coming three years than was forecast earlier this year, spending on rail is double that at the start of the plan.
	That investment will deliver results only if costs in the industry are brought under control, which is why Richard Bowker, the Strategic Rail Authority chairman, is right to insist that the railway industry gets a proper grip on its costs—something that was conspicuously absent in the past. The report shows that the railways are carrying nearly a quarter more people than they were five years ago, but we will sustain that increase in use only if we can show that the service is better and, crucially, more reliable.
	That needs more investment, but it also requires better management of the existing network, which is what the SRA is providing. The SRA is carrying out a review to ensure that the best use is being made of existing capacity, projects are more tightly managed and costs are driven down. As the report shows, significant public investment is going into the west coast main line, which will allow greater reliability, but only because the SRA and the industry showed their determination to exercise rigorous control of the project and its costs.
	Progress is being made elsewhere, too: sustained investment year on year—over #1 billion-worth of new rolling stock has been introduced since April 2001 and a further 2,100 railway vehicles are on order; 90 per cent. of the first phase of the new channel tunnel rail link is complete, which is the first major new rail line for over 100 years; the installation of a new safety system, the train protection warning system, on about 70 per cent. of the track and about 90 per cent. of the passenger fleet; upgrading of the power supply for London commuter trains; and more maintenance, more renewals.
	Investment yes, but, just as elsewhere, with investment must come reform. Every one of us knows that standards on our railways can be improved. The report shows that we are prepared to spend more, but, in return, the railway industry has to do far more to drive up standards and reliability. Our priority is to deliver a safe and reliable transport system that enables people and goods to move around the country as easily and efficiently as possible. The plan sets out the investment to achieve that over a 10-year period.
	There are no quick fixes or easy solutions. Sustained investment is needed year on year and over many decades. We are committed to the long haul, and to the sustained investment and improvements in services that are essential to our continued economic and social prosperity.

Tim Collins: As ever, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the fact that he is making a statement to the House at all. Yesterday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said not once but twice that this would be a written, not an oral, statement. All hon. Members will welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that a fiasco of this magnitude required him to come to the House to face the music. Does he realise that, so bad is his predicament, some people may almost feel sorry for him? Does he accept that many will understand why he may have been reluctant to come here for his third statement of failure in as many weeks? Two weeks ago he made a statement after the courts threw out his airports consultation. Last week he made a statement on the need to reverse the Government's entire approach to road building. Today he makes a statement on the collapse of his rail policies. Is he as grateful as the nation that because of Christmas he cannot come here to make a statement next week, otherwise who knows what disasters he would have to admit to then?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that he came here today not to praise the 10-year transport plan, but to bury it? Now that he has abandoned the congestion targets, scrapped the rail passenger target, done a complete U-turn on road building and admitted that many proposed rail infrastructure improvements will not happen, will he admit that the 10-year transport plan is so much of a corpse that Amanda Burton has been spotted preparing a post mortem?
	The Secretary of State clearly has a sense of humour. He has produced a document entitled XDelivering Better Transport". My favourite corker line in it is:
	XOverall, this report shows that we have made a good start".
	If this is the Secretary of State's interpretation of a good start, one shudders to think what a bad start would have been. Will he clarify what he said this morning on the XToday" programme, when he claimed that he was Xgetting a grip" on costs in the rail industry? Will he confirm that, as the Under-Secretary set out in a parliamentary answer, the SRA's budget for 2001–02 was set at #1.28 billion but had to be increased to #1.87 billion? Does he concede that in the current year it was set at #2.17 billion and has risen again to #2.37 billion? How is that Xgetting a grip" on costs? Given that record, is the SRA best placed to lecture the rest of the industry on the need for cost control?
	On page 41 of the document, it says:
	XThe structure of Network Rail is designed to ensure that . . . it is incentivised to . . . drive down costs."
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as Network Rail's press office told the House of Commons Library today, the maintenance budget for the rail network has risen from #1.9 billion in 1999–2000 to #3.8 billion this year? Will he also confirm that that includes a rise of #1 billion in the 12 months since the Government took control of Railtrack, and that it has been accompanied by an increase, not a cut, in the number of trains delayed by track work? Who is to blame for this explosion of costs in a company that, in his phrase, is now in the public sector? How does a doubling of those massive sums represent a driving down of costs?
	Does the Secretary of State accept that, because of the complete collapse of cost control at Network Rail, the SRA is now telling the train operating companies that they may have to cope with 20 per cent. less subsidy, which will mean higher fares and fewer trains? Will he answer the question that he dodged on the XToday" programme this morning? Does he stick by the target in the 10-year transport plan to increase rail passenger numbers by 50 per cent.? If he sticks by that target, how does he propose to deliver it?
	Will the Secretary of State clarify his excuses for all these failures? In his document, he says that we must avoid the years of
	Xstop-go funding and shifting policies."
	Last year, the Government did not add one inch of tarmac to the national road network, and this year they have announced a huge increase in road building. What is that if not stop-go funding? There is no long-term policy consistency.
	It is hinted in The Guardian today that the Secretary of State has said that the increase in congestion is because local authorities have not yet introduced congestion charging. Is he for or against congestion charging in London? He has dodged that question eight times on the radio, and he has three times refused to answer it in the House, so will he answer it today?
	Does the Secretary of State endorse the comments of an off-the-record source in his Department, who told the BBC on Sunday that the Secretary of State blames the legacy of the Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) for the mess that he is in? Does that not come closest to the truth? Is the Secretary of State not just the fall guy, the loser at pass the parcel, the last one left in the room when the integrated transport policy disintegrated in his hands?
	After five and half years of wasting time and money, after a list of broken promises and abandoned targets that has grown as long as a queue on the M6, and after yet another admission of complete and total failure today, will not the British public conclude that Labour has not got a clue about transport and is hopelessly, undeniably and uselessly incompetent?

Alistair Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that it is always a great pleasure to come to the House to debate with him. I look forward to it—indeed, at the weekend I was disappointed when at one point I thought that I might not be able to do so today. However, here we are, and as ever he has shown why it is such a pleasure for me to debate with him.
	The first concession that the hon. Gentleman seemed to make was that, in his view, Mr. Jim Naughtie of Radio 4 is a better examiner of me than he is. That is evident, as he kept referring to all the things that I did or did not say to Mr. Naughtie. On the subject of the press, I noticed that the hon. Gentleman put out a press statement that makes one or two criticisms of what we are doing. It concludes by stating:
	XIt's time for a new approach."
	Does not that sum up his problem? He has promised us a new approach since the summer, but there are now less than seven days before Christmas and we have yet to get the Conservatives' new policies.
	The other matters that he raised do perhaps merit a substantive reply. As I have said time and again, what the transport system needs—railways in particular, but roads as well—is a commitment by Governments to steady funding, year on year, decade by decade. The hon. Gentleman is critical of the current roads programme, but here I should give the previous Government some credit. Some of the roads that are being completed now were actually planned during the time of the previous Tory Government. However, it surely follows that one reason why fewer roads are being completed now is because of decisions that were taken 10 years ago, when, as a result of the economic crisis that the Tories ran into, they had a spot of bother with public spending. The point of the 10-year plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition cannot have it both ways. If they agree that some of the roads now being completed were planned under them, it follows that some of the roads not now being completed should have been authorised some years ago.
	On the railways, again, we are dealing with something of a long-term problem. In complaining that we are spending too much on the railways, the hon. Gentleman expands on the Leader of the Opposition's firm promise that they are not going to match our spending on transport. So we must look forward to Tory cuts in their next manifesto. We have had to spend more on maintenance because after the Hatfield rail accident, it was manifestly obvious that the state of the railways was far worse than anybody in the industry—or, I suspect, in this House—ever realised.
	That leads me to my second point. We do need to spend more on maintenance, and to spend money on making sure that we get a reliable train service, but as I said during Question Time, we must drive down costs. This is an industry that for many years did not have sufficient regard to the need for proper cost control. Many Members have rightly said, XWhy are you giving more money to people who ask for more funds to renew their franchises? Why aren't you just saying no?" I understand that point, but I am saying through the SRA to the industry, XYou need to get control of your costs and to drive up standards." I make no apology for the fact that we are spending more and telling the industry that it must get a proper grip on funding.
	Finally, although the hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his criticisms if he can, he cannot get away from the fact that the fundamental problems—be it road congestion or train reliability and the need to maintain the track—require steady investment. For as long as the Tory policy is to spend less on the trains, they have limited credibility in this area.

Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although hon. Members will rarely have heard one more unjustifiably complacent. Is not the 10-year transport plan in tatters? Does the Secretary of State accept that he has had as dismal a month as any experienced by rail commuters?
	In the past month, we have learned that rail delays have doubled under Labour, and that cancellations are up by 50 per cent. Bus and rail fares have increased in real terms, while the cost of motoring has fallen. We have learned also that, under Labour, buses outside London are carrying fewer passengers, that the airport consultation paper was illegal and biased, that there has been improper accounting of Network Rail, and that the public-private partnership for London Underground no longer offers value for money. Moreover, we have learned that Labour's road congestion targets will not be met, that rail improvement projects are being shelved, that some rail services are being abandoned, and that passengers will be expected to pay even higher fares.
	To cap it all, the Secretary of State has returned to the failed predict-and-provide approach to the road building programme. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) asked, how can the Secretary of State claim in today's report that the Government have made a Xgood start" to delivering the improvements envisaged in the 10-year plan? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way to tackle rising road congestion is to provide an integrated public transport system that is safe, reliable and affordable? How can that be achieved by cutting rail services, increasing fares and reducing by #312 million the money going to the SRA? How can it be achieved by initiating—against the advice of the Government's own advisory bodies—a massive road building programme that contains not even a hint of road pricing? How can it be achieved when the Department for Transport does not even monitor all the aspects of its own plan?
	Why is it only now that the Secretary of State has woken up to the massively escalating costs of rail improvements and maintenance? Even his predecessor acknowledged the problems created when there are too many contractors on the line.
	The 10-year plan is unravelling, so does the Secretary of State accept that it was flawed from the start and that claims of available funding and anticipated outcomes were massively exaggerated? If this is to be yet another of the lines in the sand for transport so often promised by his predecessor, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that at least there will be no fiddled figures this time, that realistic targets will be set, and that he will work with others to find the imaginative and innovative solutions needed to produce the truly integrated transport system that this country needs and deserves?

Alistair Darling: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not send an advance copy of his statement to me, as he has clearly been preparing it for some time.
	The hon. Gentleman raises a number of matters, but I have made it clear that the progress report merely details what has happened in the 18 months since the 10-year plan was put in place. It is an investment plan, and its essential element is the allocation of #180 billion of private and public money over a 10-year period. That money remains in place, and will be spent. Indeed, some #6 billion in the second half of the plan remains unallocated, and I shall allocate that in the coming period.
	The money is there, and the hon. Gentleman's assertion that something has happened to change that is simply wrong. The money is there, and it is beginning to make a difference. There is no doubt that the scale of the task in relation to road congestion and the railways is far greater than many people believed when the plan was put in place, but that is something that we must face up to. People know from their day-to-day experience what the problems are, and it is no use politicians pretending that there are easy and simple solutions.
	The hon. Gentleman implied that he would want to spend more on public transport, and I understand that that is the Liberal position. I tackled the hon. Gentleman last week about his party's new spending plans, but his fellow Liberals may not be aware that they contain five tests that must be met. One test is that the pledge has to be funded within current budgets, so the hon. Gentleman's party is not making any more money available. Another test that must be passed is whether any project could not be delivered better by the private sector. That goes rather further than any other major political party.
	The hon. Gentleman says that his policy is to raise the cost of motoring, at the same time as complaining about it. I would love to see that being peddled around some rural constituencies as a Liberal policy.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does the word Xabracadabra" come to mind?

Alistair Darling: Many words come into my mind in connection with the Liberals, but most of them are probably unparliamentary.
	The key point is this. The 10-year plan set out an investment strategy, involving both public and private money, covering a far longer period than had ever been covered before. It is our job to make sure that we tackle the problems, which is why I announced the investment in roads last week. Incidentally, although the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) condemned it, three of his colleagues said that they wanted even more to be spent on the roads. We must also get to grips with the rail problems, but they are deep-seated. I have always said that we are in this for the long haul.
	We need to gain control of costs, but I am confident that in time we can begin to change, and build a transport system that will underpin our continued economic success. We will not do that, however, without the continuing investment to which the Government are committed—unlike the Conservatives, who are committed to the opposite, and unlike the Liberals, who would never be able to fund all their aspirations despite the injunction now imposed on them.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the quality of the opposition that he has managed to arouse this afternoon. Few people, surely, could have such obtuse and unhelpful policies to offer as criticisms of his plans.
	May I ask the Secretary of State a rather simpler question? As his Department knows, it is important to remember that if we manage to keep motoring costs constant we can affect congestion by 6 per cent. Given that public transport costs appear to be rising despite his best efforts, will he please accept that we must now start looking at the costs of motoring as well as railways?

Alistair Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's view, which she has expressed consistently for a long time, but we must consider not just the costs of motoring but the attractiveness, as well as the availability, of public transport. In too many parts of the country, it needs substantial improvement. I am thinking particularly of rural bus services. As for the railways, while there is no doubt that more money is going in and reliability and punctuality have improved over the past year, there is still a long way to go.
	Our strategy is this. We need to invest in public transport—to spend more on supporting railways and buses—and also encourage local authorities to draw up proper plans for improving the environment of town and city centres, thus encouraging people to use public transport and leave their cars at home whenever that is possible. As I have said, however, it is also important for any transport strategy to be balanced and measured. There must be a balance between the private car and public transport, and that is the objective in our plan

Peter Lilley: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Thameslink 2000 plan, announced with great fanfare in his predecessor's 10-year plan and delayed within 10 weeks because of environmental problems, has now—after 10 months—been deferred indefinitely owing to cost overruns? Can he also confirm that there will be fewer services on the lines taking my constituents to London? When will they see any improvement, rather than deterioration, while plans are constantly being delayed?

Alistair Darling: The environmental problems to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are planning problems. No Government and no railways can get around the fact that planning permission must be applied for.
	As I have said a number of times in the House when I have been asked similar questions about Thameslink, we must bear it in mind that we are trying to build a railway rather than redeveloping parts of London. In the case of Thameslink, some people have seen an opportunity to do an awful lot of redevelopment along the way. That inflates costs, and while it may be desirable for development reasons it does not help us to build the railway.
	I am anxious to get Thameslink extended. The right hon. Gentleman is right: it has been a major boon for London, opening links between north and south that existed to no real extent for a long time. Two things are necessary for the extension. We must secure the planning consent, which is being considered at the moment, and the project—like all rail projects—must be both affordable and deliverable. If those things can be achieved, Thameslink will significantly improve north-south links across London, and I for one would dearly like that to happen.

Linda Perham: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the prospects for the Crossrail project? It is extremely important that reliability and congestion for those who commute from my part of east London are improved. Will he assure me that the Government are committed to backing that project for the next 10 years?

Alistair Darling: It might help if I tell my hon. Friend and the House where we are on that. When I looked at the plans a couple of months ago, it was clear that we did not have something that was sufficiently worked up and deliverable to be able to cost it and draw up plans to put in place. I therefore asked the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London to come up with workable, affordable and deliverable plans by the end of February. That work is being done.
	On the general point, there can be no doubt that, with what is happening in London now, and especially taking into account forecasts for the future, the need for an east-west rail link is important. The amount of development at Canary Wharf, the Thames gateway and other areas means that there will be significant transport pressures. Given the time it takes to deliver any major rail infrastructure project, the sooner we get on to producing such plans, the better. I must emphasise, not just today but no doubt for many weeks to come, that I make no bones about the fact that, unless we start to control costs and tell people that they cannot just think of a number and expect us to pay it, we will not see such projects. As it is, I very much hope that we can get something done because those two main crossings—Crossrail and Thameslink—are critical for the future of London for the next 50 years.

Alistair Burt: When the Government and their associated transport agencies can be so cavalier and treat so lightly their targets and commitments, why do they still require the county of Bedfordshire to build a substantial number of new houses over the next decade, thus adding to rail and road congestion?

Alistair Darling: On targets, as I said earlier, the scale of the congestion problem is far greater than people thought, but that does not mean that we do not tackle it. I am telling the House—I have been open about this for sometime—that because the scale of the problem is greater, it will take longer to achieve the targets. That does not mean, however, that we abandon the objective.
	Sadly, I do not have ministerial responsibility for housing policy, but I know that there are pressures on transport links between Bedfordshire and London and other parts of the country. I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman take up the issue of housing with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Tam Dalyell: A paragraph of the helpfully produced statement refers to projects being Xmore tightly managed" and to costs being driven down. Having visited the RMT's quarterly conference in Perth earlier this year, I know that part of the difficulty is that there are fewer and fewer engineers who are capable of tight management. If, over the long term—this is a long-term matter—more rail engineers could be trained, that might solve part of the problem.

Alistair Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that, especially during the Railtrack period, a number of railway engineers simply left or used other aspects of their engineering skills and were not available to the railways. I suspect that the industry will pay a heavy price for that for some time to come. The former Secretary of State for Transport set up the rail academy to try to encourage the training of more engineers. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is imperative that we encourage people into this career. With the right management and the right controls, the railways have a good future and should offer a very good career for someone with engineering skills—either a young person or somebody who is currently working elsewhere. The Government will do all that we can to help the industry to attract such people, because that is its future.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State look into a perversity of the punctuality target system? For example, if a train on the Waterloo to Reading service is running late, an announcement is made to passengers that the train will not to stop at up to seven intermediate stations so that it can get to Reading on time, which completely disrupts and messes up their journey. I am sure that that was not intended. Do we not need a different system so that everyone can arrive on time, rather than just the few people going to the terminus?

Alistair Darling: As part of the franchising agreement, the SRA is looking at some of the perverse incentives in the system. It has also announced that the south-west line will be the first in Britain whose management—the day-to-day operation—will be the same for both the track and the train operator. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that one of the by-products of privatisation is that the track is managed separately from the trains, and that we have ended up with the absurd situation in which a train operator could see a fire on the line but could do nothing about it without contacting the track operator. On the south-west line, the SRA is trying out a new system with one general manager. That will be much better because it will begin to tackle one of the fundamental flaws of privatisation—the belief that the track and the trains have no relationship to each other. In reality, they are intimately related, so unitary management will be much better.

Geraint Davies: In focusing public money on congestion hotspots, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the marginal cost of car usage versus the marginal cost of public transport usage, especially when evaluating the London congestion charging scheme? The scheme is expected to generate an operating profit of #121 million next year, which could be set against the cost of public transport systems in the capital.

Alistair Darling: It is clear that the money raised from congestion charging schemes in London or elsewhere must go back into transport improvements. In general, the Government are keen to ensure that public transport is improved, and the Croydon tram scheme is an example. A lot of money was put into the scheme and it is working well. On my hon. Friend's central point, if money is to be raised from motorists by congestion charging, it must go back into improving public transport.

Pete Wishart: After the privatisation nightmare of the Conservative years, it is hard to believe that things could actually get worse on the railways, but somehow the Government have conspired to achieve just that. Will the Secretary of State explain how the reduction in subsidy and the expected higher fares will attract more people on to the railways? What does he say to the hard-pressed rail users of Scotland who have already been short-changed by the SRA and who now face a further deterioration in their service?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: so far, the subsidy has not come down. Indeed, we have the opposite problem: many train operating companies are coming to us and asking for more and more money. On behalf of the Government and on behalf of people who pay taxes for such things, I have to say that we must be satisfied that the expenditure can be justified and that the companies need to take far tighter control of costs. In relation to the railways generally, it is worth bearing it in mind that, since 1997, they have carried about a quarter more passengers. Of course, there are problems in the system, which is why we need more investment. The hon. Gentleman represents a Scottish constituency, so he will know that, for example, the line to Inverness has been plagued by problems with landslips and so on. Many of the problems stem from successive underinvestment. That is why we are putting more money into the system, which the hon. Gentleman would be unable to do because of the policies espoused by his party.

Helen Jackson: It is not the fault of the people of Sheffield that the bulk of their train services are provided by Virgin Cross Country, with its new trains and their lousy reliability, and Arriva Transpennine, which has pretty awful trains with even worse reliability. I am sure that the people of Sheffield would blame not my right hon. Friend's investment programme but the botched privatisation scheme of the previous Conservative Government. Will he urge the private companies to put things right, as they promised? They may deliver new services, yet Virgin's promised new half-hourly services regularly run up to an hour late on almost every route.

Alistair Darling: When the Virgin Cross Country service was introduced in September, it was generally welcomed because the quality of the rolling stock was a lot better; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) commented on it. That is worth noting, but the problems arise from two sources. First, there have been problems with the reliability of the new trains. Although teething problems are inevitable to some extent—British Rail had them and, I suppose, anyone would have them—sorting them out has taken longer than might have been thought.
	The second thing, which is a serious problem throughout the railway network, relates to capacity, particularly in the midlands, where Virgin Cross Country trains encounter other mainline services. That problem arises with a fragmented railway system, because, under the present rules, which are about to change, people can say, XI want to run more trains on the railways; I am entitled to do it," without any regard to the knock-on effect on other operators.
	Those things are being sorted out by the SRA, but although I accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to improve reliability, which is critical if we are to get more people on to the trains, we need to look at the underlying problems, and they are being looked at. However, it is welcome that those behind the industry want to transform cross-country services, which were pretty lousy in the old BR days, into something better. The difficulty is that we have a wee bit further to go before we can reach that happy position.

George Osborne: After all the advance briefing and spin, the Secretary of State could not bring himself to say in the statement that the Government have abandoned the central target of cutting congestion. In its place, can he offer this prediction: will congestion be higher, lower or about the same in three years' time compared with today?

Alistair Darling: I would not have described the weekend's press as spin—not from my point of view, anyway. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of spin, I can understand why his party is in such difficulty at the moment. I have made no bones about the congestion target. It is hardly spin to tell XNewsnight" in an interview with Mr. Paxman that I did not think that we would hit the target. I was answering the question that was put to me. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) should have asked me that question in the House, but he did not. I do not know why.
	I make no bones about the fact that, for the reasons that I have stated, I do not think that the congestion target will be reached in the expected time scale, but the amount of congestion would be spiralling out of control if we had not put such measures in place. Those measures will have a substantial impact on the growth that would otherwise have taken place, so I am being straightforward with hon. Members and the public. When Ministers realise that there is a problem in relation to such things, they should tell the House and the public generally because, frankly, what the public want to hear is not so much the recriminations about the whys and wherefores, but what we are doing to sort out the problem. Unlike the Conservative party, we have a plan, a programme and investment to sort it out.

Alan Whitehead: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today and particularly his confirmation that the transport plan involves substantial long-term investment. May I ask him whether he regularly assesses the transport plan's impact on climate change? In particular, does he consider that the review of the first 18 months of the plan that he has announced today will enhance the ability of UK transport to contribute to carbon dioxide emission reductions?

Alistair Darling: It is important that the transport plan, and everything that the Department for Transport does, has regard to our environmental obligations. That is one reason why the Department is keen to support and improve technology for cleaner cars and so on. We are keen to reduce congestion because there is no doubt that congestion leads to increased pollution. Again, one of the major objectives of the 10-year plan is to put more money into public transport because it consumes energy more efficiently. So my hon. Friend is right: the interests of the environment are clearly served by ensuring that we maintain the 10-year investment plan, which is what we intend to do.

David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what impact the proposals will have on the midland main line to Leicester and beyond, which has improved so much since privatisation? What impact will it have on the Leicester to Hinckley and Birmingham line? Does he not feel a deep sense of humiliation coming to the House this afternoon as a Labour Minister and presenting policies that reduce subsidies to railways, which his party has always gone on about as being so important? Is it not disingenuous to ignore the transport achievements that took place under Conservative Governments, such as the conception to completion of the M25 motorway system?

Alistair Darling: I would like to study the hon. Gentleman's question tomorrow, as I picked up only bits of it, and it seemed to range from the midland main line to the M25.

David Tredinnick: What is wrong with that?

Alistair Darling: Nothing in principle; I just did not quite follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's question. The central point, I think, is that we need to maintain investment to improve the quality of services, and we will need to maintain investment in both road and rail. We do, however, need to control costs. If he asks me whether I have difficulties about controlling costs, my answer is no. Had the last Conservative Government had some regard to controlling costs, they might not have embarked on the privatisation of the railways in the way that they did. Without doubt, that contributed significantly to costs getting out of control in far too many cases.

Andrew Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the way in which we ought to measure the 10-year plan is by how far it reduces the need and the desire of people to travel? Part of that is making sure that people can live and work much closer together, and the other part must be enabling people to walk or cycle to work. What is happening to the money to be spent on making it more attractive for people to walk and cycle?

Alistair Darling: On the latter point, it is important that local authorities—mostly, they are responsible—pay particular attention to creating environments in which people feel safe when they want to walk or cycle to work. That is happening in a number of towns and cities, but more can be done. In relation to my hon. Friend's more substantive point, I understand the argument that we should try to locate people and their place of work closer together. During the 1970s and 1980s, many transport planners and town planners felt that that was possible. I am not sure whether I would adopt that as a major part of a transport solution. It is a fact of life that people are likely to move jobs more frequently, which means that, from time to time, they will probably have to travel further than otherwise.
	I agree with my hon. Friend's first point, however, in relation to the attractiveness of public transport. I cite the west coast main line, which I know affects him and his constituents. There is no doubt that if, for example, we ask someone travelling from Manchester to London why they do not use public transport, we must be able to point to a reliable, frequent, clean, safe train service as an alternative. The west coast main line will go a long way to providing that, as will—given that we are in praise of Virgin—the new electric tilting trains, which will come into service next year. I understand that, yesterday, a train went to Manchester in just over two hours, which is a significant improvement on the current service. There will be improvements in years to come, but I do not shrink from the fact that we face a significant long haul to accomplish the changes that we all want.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I would hope that all hon. Members standing would be able to catch my eye. If we have short questions and answers, that might be possible.

Tom Brake: What allowance has the Secretary of State made for potential cost overruns in his plans, as he will be aware that, yesterday, the cost of the public-private partnership contracts went up by #300 million?

Alistair Darling: The position is that we make provision for the likely costs. It would be a big mistake, however, to build into our budget provision for cost overruns, as that would be an open invitation to people at large to come and get us. That is certainly not our policy, although it may be the policy of the Liberal Democrats.

Eric Martlew: In an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend said that the rail academy had been set up. The reality is that the project is stalled in the Strategic Rail Authority at present, and there is great concern that it will be downgraded and even abandoned. There is a massive skills shortage on the railway, and without that rail academy we will not meet the 10-year plan.

Alistair Darling: I have seen the letter that my hon. Friend wrote to me about this subject, and I am about to reply to him now. I told my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it is planned to set up a rail academy, but it will not physically be situated in Carlisle or anywhere else. It will simply be a means by which we can enable more training to take place in different places up and down the country. It will not be like a university that is situated in one place. However, I plan to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to set out the position fully.

Gordon Prentice: I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of building capacity. How many local transport plans contain proposals for reopening old lines or building new railways?

Alistair Darling: The answer is that a number of them do, but they are not always matched with the means of doing it.

Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend going to do something about it?

Alistair Darling: In some cases, there is an argument for reopening or building heavy rail, and we talked about Crossrail earlier. In other areas, heavy rail may not be the solution. For example, much of Manchester's light-rail metro runs across lines previously used by heavy rail. I would not sign up to the proposition that heavy rail is always the solution. However, when local authorities are considering that option, they need to come up with a proposal for paying for it and must ensure that the sums add up.

Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend has rightly focused on costs and on the need to get a grip on them and force them down. It is instructive to compare the costs in BR days with those of today. Rail infrastructure costs have trebled in less than 10 years, and the cost of replacing a mile of railway line is now #1.5 million, compared with #350,000 under BR. The contracting culture and privatisation have caused the problem. Will he not accept that we must, in all practical terms, look to public ownership of the railways once more?

Alistair Darling: That would be one way of spending quite a lot of money. My hon. Friend's point about rail costs increasing is true, but it is over-simplistic to suggest that it is all due to the fact that contractors are used. We have to spend more to replace railways because an awful lot of them were built by our Victorian forefathers. They were maintained in the BR days, but are now coming up for wholesale replacement.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) has left the Chamber. He was briefly in the place occupied by the Scottish nationalists but has now been replaced by a Welsh nationalist. However, I told the hon. Gentleman that the structures on the highland line that were collapsing were built by the Victorians. The problem is that not enough money was spent on them over the years. Therefore, we now have to spend more per mile to replace them than we would have done if we were simply conducting routine maintenance or even renewals 30 or 40 years ago.

Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend accept that what has been said about buses—very little indeed—will not be that well received by average punters in what is laughingly called a bus shelter in Hemel Hempstead or Kings Langley? They often wait for an hour or more with absolutely no information about when, if ever, they will see a service. Much of the time, services are summarily withdrawn.
	Will my right hon. Friend investigate the suggestion that we should have a strategic bus authority, which, among other things, would have as part of its brief the provision of information for bus passengers along the lines of the information that is currently available for London Transport passengers? People would then be enticed to use buses and would not have to put up with the current fiendishly awful system.

Alistair Darling: In my defence, I have not said much about buses because no one has asked me much about them. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, would no doubt have something to say if I volunteered lots of information without being asked for it.
	On my hon. Friend's point about the particular problem in Hemel Hempstead, he has no doubt had a word with his local authority. Last week, in the local government settlement, I announced that significant sums were available. There is a lot more money for transport, but we look to local authorities for the provision of bus services.
	On the point about a strategic bus authority, I am bound to say that my instinct is not to set up another bureaucracy. That can sometimes be a distraction from the main point, which is to ensure that we have better bus services.

Louise Ellman: What assurances can my right hon. Friend give that improvements in passenger and freight services will assist the ongoing economic regeneration of Liverpool? May I also thank him for his decision to approve the tram line in Liverpool? That will certainly help.

Alistair Darling: On the last point, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I noticed that she thanked me before I announced that decision in the local press.
	On passengers and freight, there is no doubt that the upgrading of the west coast main line, which is an essential part of the links to Liverpool, will mean that there is more capacity for both passengers and freight. My hon. Friend is the first to ask about freight. It is worth noting the 7 per cent. increase in the number of trains that carry freight, and that should be welcomed.

Andy Reed: I am glad that my right hon. Friend mentioned the reduction in the number of road deaths. I am sure he would agree, however, that it is unacceptable that about 3,500 people are still killed on our roads every year. Will he ensure that part of the investment will be used to reduce the speed of motorists, especially in villages in my constituency? We also need increased investment to get a reliable bus service. People are transferring to their cars because bus services across the country are unreliable. Will he ensure that that and the investment in local transport plans lead to a greater reduction in the number of people killed on our roads every year?

Alistair Darling: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Although our roads are relatively safe compared with those in the rest of Europe, nine people will be killed on our roads today. When we discuss the safety of other modes of transport and when the measures taken by local authorities to discourage cars going at speed are criticised, it is worth bearing in mind the fact that nine families today will lose someone. No Government should sit back and tolerate that. It is why I will never apologise for measures taken either by us as a national Government or by local authorities to make our roads safer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that.

Points of Order

Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, of which I have given notice. The Ministry of Defence announced today that it has begun preparations for a possible war against Iraq. Letters are going out to reservists, contracts are being sought for cargo ships to move troops and equipment, and tanks are being prepared for use in the desert. Furthermore, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, indicated that later this week the US will reject the dossier that the Iraqis submitted to the UN. That is hardly a surprise to anyone who recognises how much President Bush wants to go to war.
	The House starts its Christmas recess on Thursday, so MPs could be left without any opportunity of expressing their views about going to war. The last debate on Iraq certainly did not give us that opportunity. Has the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence said whether a statement on Iraq and a possible war against it will be made before the Christmas recess?

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hiring cargo ships does not come cheap. Can the House of Commons be told about the terms of compensation before any action is taken? If those terms have been worked out, one draws the inevitable conclusion that the decision to go to war has already been made because compensation is crucial in that matter. I have just returned from giving the Zayed lecture in Abu Dhabi. Arabs from all over the Gulf think that the war is an extraordinary folly that sets the Christian world against the Islamic world. Surely the House of Commons should have a statement before the recess.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am unaware of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence making such a request. However, the points raised by both hon. Members are on the record and the respective Ministers will be aware of them.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave notice of the fact that I want to raise the way in which the House authorities accommodate demonstrators. In the main debate last night, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said:
	XIs it true that the hon. Gentleman"—
	the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—
	Xsponsored 1,000 people to come to the House to demonstrate and that he put them in Room W1?"
	The hon. Member for North Wiltshire replied:
	XThe hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have sponsored no one to come here today".—[Official Report, 16 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 636.]
	A statement issued by the Metropolitan police giving advance notice of a mass lobby estimated that 1,000 people would be accommodated in Room W1, and named the sponsoring Members as Mr. Peter Atkinson and Mr. James Gray. I have spoken to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire to give him notice of my point of order, and he explained that he had not sponsored that group of people because he understood sponsorship to mean a financial contribution. Of course, I accept that explanation entirely, but in case my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham is accused of misleading the House—he is a sensitive person, as we all know—the record must be put straight.
	There is a further serious point. If the House authorities are booking Room W1 for 1,000 people, we know that at least 970 of them—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask whether, overnight, there has been a transformation of Room W1, which, to my knowledge, manages with some difficulty to hold only 15 people at most?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) has certainly made his point, and it is now on the record.

ROYAL ASSENT

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2002
	Appropriation (No. 2) Act 2002

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill

[Relevant documents: Thirteenth Report from the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Planning Green Paper, HC 476-I, and the Government Response thereto, Cm 5625; Planning, Competitiveness and Productivity: Memoranda submitted to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 114-II; and Memorandum on Planning, Competitiveness and Productivity: Research commissioned from Roger Tym and Partners by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Committee, Session 2002–03, HC 114-III.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Barbara Roche: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	On 18 July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced to the House the need for a step change in the Government's policies for building successful, thriving and inclusive communities in all regions. He will publish a communities plan in the new year setting out the way in which we will develop our policy. We will set our policy on improving housing in an overall context of creating and maintaining sustainable communities. Every action in the plan will be underpinned by that objective. To create and maintain sustainable communities successfully, we need to work together at all levels to improve local economies; promote safety and stability; provide good-quality public services; build a skills base; and engage with our communities.
	Any plan needs to be set against our wider agenda of strengthening local and regional government, community engagement, community cohesion and social inclusion. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill currently being considered by the House gives regions, if their people so choose, a distinct political voice and a real say over decisions that matter to them. For the first time, regions will have responsibility for taking greater control over things that matter to people—economic development, regeneration, planning, housing, transport, health, culture and the environment.

Patrick McLoughlin: That Bill will give regional authorities dramatic powers. Should they not be left with county councils in areas that have not voted for a regional assembly?

Barbara Roche: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the regional planning body includes many directly elected members or local councillors who, of course, are directly accountable to their electorate. He also knows that many Conservative councillors are strong members of those regional chambers. During my time at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and, before that, at the Cabinet Office, I have had the pleasure of meeting many Conservative councillors who are engaged with such bodies and make a strong contribution to them. I am not sure that they would recognise the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Barbara Roche: No, I must make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I am sure that he will seek to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye later.
	The Local Government Bill, which is also before the House, offers new flexibility and extends the freedoms available to local government. It will free successful councils to innovate and make real improvements in local services and the quality of life in their communities. A reformed planning system is a key tool in delivering sustainable communities. That is the purpose of the Bill.
	Planning is critical to the delivery of new housing, the transport infrastructure, hospitals and schools. It is critical to ensure that we make the best use of our land, increasing development on brownfield sites and protecting and enhancing our green belt and valuable countryside.

Eric Pickles: If transport is so important to planning, why do the Government's proposals leave the responsibility for transport with county councils, not with the regional authorities?

Barbara Roche: We already have regional planning guidance. We have an unnecessary layer, the county structure plans, which in the main replicate what is done at national and regional level. Of course, there is a part to be played by the counties and others in transport plans, but we envisage that where people would like elected regional assemblies, those should have powers in transport matters.
	As I said, it is critical that we make the best use of our land and protect valuable countryside.

Peter Lilley: Can the hon. Lady clarify whether the compulsory purchase powers in the Bill will enable councils to deal with the problem where companies such as Property Spy buy up greenbelt land, sell off little fragments at inflated prices claiming that it could be developed some day, allow it to become derelict and an eyesore, and thereby hope to hasten development? Can compulsory purchase powers be used to cope with that problem?

Barbara Roche: I shall come to that aspect, but the Bill does not deal with all aspects of compulsory purchase. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a great interest in that topic. The Bill already contains some 90 clauses, but that does not mean that it is the end of the process on planning. We have limited our objectives to a number of key compulsory planning issues. I shall deal with compulsory purchase a little later.
	The current planning system has served the country well, but it needs reform to support the new agenda. Anyone looking at the record over past decades will recognise that all Governments have failed to address the problems of the planning system. Too many councils fall short of the targets for handling planning applications. Too many local plans are out of date and no longer reflect the realities that many communities face.
	We set out our proposals for reform in the planning Green Paper last year. We received more than 16,000 responses—one of the biggest responses to consultation on record—which amply demonstrates the importance of the planning system. There was certainly a consensus about the need for change. All of us as constituency Members have experience of planning issues and know how important they are to our local communities.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend mentioned the consultation papers published by the Government over the past few years. The responses to the papers mention planning gain as an important issue. Why have the Government not taken the opportunity to clarify the rules on planning gain in the Bill?

Barbara Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is extremely important. I have seen in my constituency and elsewhere and heard from councillors of various parties how helpful planning gain under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is. I can assure him that revised guidance will be used. I hope that that will satisfy him.

Edward Davey: The Minister referred to our experience of the planning system as constituency Members. How does she recommend that we explain to our constituents the new proposals for local development, which include a local development framework, local development schemes, local development documents, development plan documents, action plans and statements of community involvement? Does she think that that system will be easier to explain than the current one?

Barbara Roche: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman—in my legal days, that opening was usually the polite way of being slightly rude, but of course, I would have no intention of doing any such thing in this honourable House—if he looks closely at the Bill and the Green Paper, he will see that, in talking about a local development framework, we are referring not only to the documents that will form part of that framework, but to the process of involving local communities. We may explore that matter further in Committee, but I think that he will find that it is simpler than he has suggested.
	We have listened to the concerns that have been expressed. In July, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out our response to the consultation in our paper on sustainable communities, XDelivering through Planning". We continue to listen. As with any legislation, the Bill will not be the last word on the matter. However, while we continue to listen, our objectives for the Bill are straightforward. We want to make the system fairer, faster and more predictable and to bring to planning clarity, certainty and more strategic direction.
	Of course, the reform agenda is not only about legislation. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in July an extra #350 million for the planning system over the next three years. Some #50 million will be released in the next financial year.

Sydney Chapman: I welcome the additional #350 million, but my understanding is that it will not be ring-fenced. If that is the case, surely it is wrong, because we want to give specific direction and resources to planning authorities so that decisions can be made more efficiently.

Barbara Roche: Ring-fencing has been the subject of lively discussion, but we think that planning is about local democracy and trusting local authorities.
	We will set out for the House the full details of how the new grant will operate. The extra money will go to the authorities that demonstrate their commitment to high-quality planning. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the main elements of the grant in his pre-Budget report. It will incentivise improved performance by local planning authorities and reward authorities in proportion to the extent of their performance improvement. Some of it will be used to strengthen regional planning and support delivery of existing housing targets.

David Drew: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of strengthening the process is to put more resources into parish and town councils? In rural areas, one of the ways in which we can build consensus is by developing a capacity for local people to feel genuinely involved in the planning process. There is no better way of doing that than through parish and town councils.

Barbara Roche: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill takes nothing away from the existing rights of parish councils. One issue that we are exploring is how, by working with other organisations, we can improve the quality of planning decisions at officer level and also in respect of councils and representatives. Although not necessarily a part of today's discussion, it is an important aspect of the planning system.

Alan Simpson: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend speak about strengthening local authorities' powers to make better quality and speedier decisions. One of the great frustrations of urban authorities, particularly those with universities based in them, is their inability to secure sustainable communities in the face of huge increases in property acquisitions and conversions to houses in multiple occupation. Will it be possible, under the powers set out in the Bill, for local authorities to set ceilings on their areas' capacity to deal with that overloading of property conversions for letting, which hinders the survival of sustainable communities?

Barbara Roche: I understand the important point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not a precise point for this legislation, but it is certainly important for my colleagues involved in that aspect of the Department's work.
	As I was saying in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), we will issue new guidance on how planning obligations will work to make the section 106 planning obligations system more transparent and simple.
	This is not just about setting targets for local authorities and asking them to do better. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will lead the way in setting itself challenging targets for handling Secretary of State cases. We shall continue to review planning policy statements to make them clearer and more succinct. I think that that will be appreciated by all hon. Members.
	Successful planning reform also depends on a change in planning culture. I add to the point made earlier about our needing to improve the education and training, and raise the skills and morale, of both planners and councillors. We also need to look at ways of spreading best practice and providing help and guidance to local authorities. Whatever the differences of opinion across the House about the approach to the planning system and planning reform, we all agree that planning is vital to our communities. Therefore, we all subscribe to raising standards and spreading best practice for both planning officials and councillors.

Andrew Love: Does my hon. Friend agree that education for local authority councillors is important also in this regard: they should focus not just on the narrow, local planning aspects of the decisions that they take, but on the wider regional and even national issues involved?

Barbara Roche: I absolutely agree, which is why we shall continue to work closely with local government associations and others to ensure that this is not a one-off approach, but one that continues throughout the process.

Anthony Steen: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: I want to make progress.

Anthony Steen: I think that the Minister is making excellent progress and I hope that my question will help.
	My concern with the Bill is about local democracy. On smaller district councils, the cabinet system has already excluded an awful lot of councillors. I fear that the Bill will alienate councillors and separate them from officials. Officials will get much more power and become more involved in planning decisions at the expense of local democracy and the councillors. Will the Minister confirm that that is not the case?

Barbara Roche: It is not the case. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and he makes a valid point, but let me try to reassure him. The Bill does not stipulate what decisions must be taken by officials or councillors. The hon. Gentleman is understandably confused about best practice targets, whereby routine and uncontroversial planning decisions can be taken by skilled planning officials, freeing councillors to deal with important matters such as controversial planning decisions, of which there are many in our constituencies.

Graham Brady: In my constituency, councillors of all parties and the public believe that the planning process does not reflect their concerns and needs. Councillors feel that they cannot throw out applications, typically those for building high-value flats, because the planning rules do not give them grounds to do that even though the local infrastructure is significantly overloaded. Can the Minister give any hope that the Bill will help with that?

Barbara Roche: I understand the concern, which applies in areas such as mine. Clearly, officials understand the planning system and the guidance. It is therefore important that the messages from our discussions of the planning process in the past year stress the importance of continuing education for councillors so that they have confidence that they are making the right decisions. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet again, I believe that some officials do not always have confidence in their decisions. Sometimes the guidance is interpreted differently and consequently different decisions are made. That is why it is important to spread best practice.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister agree that if the new system is to be successful, local people must feel that they own it? Although clause 17 provides for some community involvement, there is no provision for such involvement in drawing up the regional spatial strategies that will inform the contents of the local development documents. Community involvement is thus circumvented.

Barbara Roche: The Secretary of State must give approval, and would want to ensure that decisions took account of all relevant matters. There is a distinction between the regional spatial strategy, which is a strategic document, and the local development framework, which covers what happens on the ground in a practical way.
	The Bill simplifies the plan-led process by abolishing the middle tier of planning that exists in some areas. The new system will have two linked levels of planning: regional spatial strategies and local development frameworks. The latter will consist of a set of local development documents, which each authority will be required to prepare. Together, the documents will replace local plans and unitary development plans. They will set out development proposals and have a clear map so that everyone knows what goes where.
	Each authority will prepare a local development scheme, which will list the local development documents.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Government's change of heart to require local authorities to produce a plan for their areas. That will provide much greater certainty for prospective developers, and people who live in a community and want to know what will happen to the land next door. It is a welcome change for which I thank my hon. Friend.

Barbara Roche: I should probably thank my hon. Friend, who was a key advocate of that change. I understand his reasons completely. People were anxious to ensure a clear map and the ability to understand what is happening in an area. Maps will be introduced in secondary legislation. Again, I thank him for his contribution.

Elfyn Llwyd: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: I must make some progress.
	Counties will be consultees on regional plans and continue to be responsible for transport, waste and minerals plans. Regions can use them as agents on sub-regional planning, and, when agreed, the Bill will enable counties to work with districts on local plans. As I said previously, the role of parishes is unchanged. Greater emphasis will be placed on local community participation. Local planning authorities will have to prepare statements of community involvement, which will set out how they will consult local communities on devising local development documents and significant planning applications.
	The Bill provides for making grants. Under those provisions, we shall make grants to organisations such as Planning Aid. That will allow them to develop a greater role in targeting communities that traditionally do not get involved in the planning system, especially groups in deprived areas or those representing the socially excluded. I emphasise the importance of those provisions; we all know Planning Aid's valuable contribution.

Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barbara Roche: No, I must make some progress.
	The Bill will introduce a statutory purpose for planning. We want a planning system that supports and promotes sustainable development. The Bill imposes a duty on those with plan-making functions under parts 1 and 2 to exercise them with a view to contributing to achieving sustainable development.
	Sustainable development does not mean no development, but sustaining high, stable economic growth and employment, social progress, effective protection of the environment and prudent use of resources. The Bill also grants new powers for local planning authorities to introduce local permitted development rights in local development orders.

Anthony Steen: Now that the Minister has made some progress, will she give way?

Barbara Roche: No, I must make a little more. I have an eye to the time, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
	Developers will be able to request a statement of development principles. The Bill contains new provisions to speed up the planning process for applicants and introduces greater clarity. It will also stamp out abuses of the system by preventing repeat and twin-track applications.
	The Bill reduces the time required for planning permission from five to three years and abolishes automatic renewal. Developers will therefore no longer be able to sit on planning permission for years without starting work. Many hon. Members are genuinely worried about that.
	As I said earlier, the onus is not only on local authorities; we are serious about improving the planning system

Peter Bradley: I heartily welcome my hon. Friend's comments about developers sitting on planning consents. However, what about developers who put down foundations and thus perpetually prolong planning permission, at great expense to local communities, which would like developments to be demolished or completed?

Barbara Roche: I understand my hon. Friend's point. That is the precise reason for the way in which the Bill is drafted.

Anthony Steen: I am grateful for the Minister's generosity. Sustainable development has become a buzzword for the Liberal Democrats. Whenever they are asked a question, they reply, Xsustainable development." Does the Minister realise that building programmes in many areas happen so fast and are so great that the infrastructure cannot cope with the new demands on it? Does the Bill define sustainable development so as to prevent building in constituencies such as mine, where the current infrastructure means that the rural area cannot sustain the number of people who move in?

Barbara Roche: Much as I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, I would not give the phrase Xsustainable development" to one party. We would all buy into the concept because it is about getting the balance right in the planning process. Of course, business would like a speedier process, but it is right for local communities to have a direct say, and for their voices to be heard. If I may seek to reassure him, that is why the Bill seeks to strike such a balance.
	The Bill will speed up the processing of major infrastructure projects by introducing new inquiry rules to allow inspectors to make better use of inquiry time while ensuring that everyone can adequately express their views and by putting in place new procedures to allow a team of inspectors to operate an inquiry.

Andrew Love: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barbara Roche: Yes, for the final time.

Andrew Love: I give my hon. Friend extra thanks for giving way on this point. Concern has been expressed that many groups that want to make representations to inquiries form new groups to make more representations, thus further slowing the process. Has she taken that into account in trying to limit the time that inquiries take?

Barbara Roche: Again, the question is one of balance. The consultation on the Green Paper involved a great deal of consideration of major infrastructure projects. Of course everybody wants to hear from the local community and, in particular, local community groups, but such things cannot be allowed to drag on for ever and ever when much-needed projects are being considered. The new procedures will allow the team of inspectors in, which strikes the right balance.
	The Bill will also introduce provisions to set up business planning zones, which will be planned in the regional strategic interest, but designated by individual local authorities. They will be areas in which high-quality development is fast-tracked to help to create jobs where they are needed most. The zones will not be a free-for-all, but will adhere to strict approval criteria set out in guidance and be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
	The Bill will introduce a duty for statutory consultees to respond to a consultation request within a specified time and report on their performance in meeting their targets. It will also reform the development plan system in Wales, where a single-tier local government system and a uniform pattern of unitary development plans were introduced by the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
	The basic pattern of development plans in Wales is to be retained. Local development plans will be simpler and more concise than unitary development plans. Procedures will be simplified and community participation improved. Provision is also made for the National Assembly for Wales to prepare and publish a national spatial plan for Wales.
	Where it is necessary to use compulsory purchase to assemble land for regeneration and large-scale projects, the implementation of proposals in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 18 July should help to speed the process. We intend to achieve that by making the basis on which local authorities can exercise their powers clearer and more positive while also improving compensation by introducing additional loss payments.
	The Bill sets out a reformed planning system for the 21st century that will help us to live in sustainable communities; a reformed system that will be faster and fairer; and a reformed system that will help us to meet the challenges of the future, deal with the problems of the present and protect the heritage of the past. I commend it to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Eric Pickles: I beg to move,
	That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill because it fails to set out a planning framework; it introduces the concept of regional spatial strategies, taking power away from local authorities, particularly county councils; it creates an unclear mechanism of local development documents, principles, frameworks and strategies; it fails adequately to specify how the public will be involved in the consultation on these documents; it provides for the concept of the correction of errors, which would encourage poor decision-making; it abolishes outline planning permission, thus failing to provide applicants for planning permission with certainty; it fails to clarify the position on planning gains and obligations; and it does not adequately deal with the public expenditure implications of the revised compensation payments.
	It is always a great pleasure to follow the Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women, who dealt with the House most courteously. At times, I felt as though we were already in Committee, such was her willingness to give way and to answer technical points. However, I have to say that her description of the Bill is not one that I recognise. I have read it and the explanatory notes.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman has read the wrong Bill.

Eric Pickles: Almost certainly I did. I read the Bill that is before the House, not the one that the Minister talked about.
	This could have been a great Bill that we would all be proud of and that addressed the stress in the system. It could have achieved quicker, more devolved local decisions. Instead of addressing the problems, the Government have chosen to politicise the planning process by dragging in a more remote regional authority, thereby breaking the link with decisions made by local people, which have been such an important feature of the past 50 years.
	At one time, I thought that we were being treated to the Christmas carol concert of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and that we were being given a turn—a parody of a Bill whereby a party with a large majority could push any measure through the Chamber without the Chamber objecting. If that were the case, the Bill would come awfully close to being such a measure. Despite what the Government wish, most areas of the country will not vote for a regional assembly, so deciding to build a planning system around a non-existent assembly seems perverse to me.
	To build a planning system in the certain knowledge that the south-east of England—this country's economic motor—will not have an elected assembly seems both wilful and contemptuous of local opinion. The planning system relies on three basic principles: the speed at which decisions are made, the quality of those decisions, and public acceptance of the decision-making process. In that process, there is often a tension between speed and the other two principles. That is where the problem lies.
	The Bill's tone is overwhelmingly centralising. It will take power from local people, stifle local democracy and dramatically increase the power of the Secretary of State. The Government set out on this process of reforming the planning system with the declared aim of making it quicker and less bureaucratic, increasing certainty and enhancing business and public involvement.

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: Of course. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Clive Betts: Perhaps we are both reading slightly different Bills. The hon. Gentleman talks about centralisation, but has he read the sections on community involvement and the requirements on planning authorities to produce that? Does he not welcome them?

Eric Pickles: I shall come to that. I am not saying that we cannot amend the Bill in Committee or that it cannot be improved, but I do have to say that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps due to his experience in Sheffield, is looking at the legislation through rose-coloured spectacles. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, like me, is getting on in years and has to use glasses for reading. We congratulate him on his important victory—the Government are to allow local authorities to put together some plans, which is a very good thing—but he should not let that cloud his judgment on the rest of the Bill.

Anthony Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that Xcommunity" has become another buzz word? If it means anything, it tends to be the local authority such as the parish, district or town council, but it does not mean the whole community. There is no way of consulting the community. Does he agree that the problem with the Bill and constantly harping on about the community is that there is no vehicle for consulting the community? It is lovely to say, XThe community is going to be consulted." We all feel much more comfortable when we hear that, but it will not happen.

Eric Pickles: I am sure that we can all agree that any consultation of the community must be sustainable. To answer my hon. Friend, part of the problem and the real trick for achieving success lies in getting involved in the strategic stage of the consultation process. So often, as he will recognise, consultation takes place in planning and other authorities when the process has been decided; it allows those who were involved to be told that they have done a marvellous job. The real trick of making a consultation work, if it can be made to work, is to get in at a strategic stage. That will be difficult to achieve, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, with all his experience, recognises that.
	The Government set out to reform the planning system with the declared aim of making the process quicker and less bureaucratic, thus increasing certainty and enhancing business and public involvement. The explanatory notes declare that the measures in the Bill are broadly deregulatory and will simplify the planning process. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill fails to achieve what it sets out to do. It imposes further regulation, greatly complicates the planning system and is likely to slow down the planning process rather than speed it up.

Paul Truswell: The hon. Gentleman talks about the speed of the planning process. Does he accept that the unitary development planning process that was introduced by the previous Conservative Government took almost 10 years to unfold in Leeds? How can he possibly stand there and criticise the present Government for trying to speed up the process when the system that the Conservative Government introduced was so sadly lacking?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman must understand that these criticisms are made in the context of a loving relationship.

David Davis: We never knew.

Eric Pickles: It is a side of me that my right hon. Friend has never noticed.
	I am merely trying to improve the process, and I shall show how the Bill will slow it down. The most important aspect is that it will remove the democratic checks and balances from the planning mechanism, downgrade the role of local people and drastically enhance the power of Whitehall and the Secretary of State.
	An intelligent, thoughtful planning process is likely to help to resolve the crisis in affordable housing, and increase the amount of house building on brownfield sites.

Peter Bradley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has referred to affordable housing. What increase in the availability of affordable housing, especially in rural communities, would be achieved by the extension of the right to buy to housing association properties, as championed by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to take part in our consultation exercise. He will have seen that we propose a clear exemption for rural authorities with populations of 3,000. I see no problem. No doubt he will now feel ready to endorse the right to buy to ensure that people have a right to own their own houses. That seems to me to be of considerable importance.
	It is worth remembering that, according to last year's Green Paper, 90 per cent. of planning applications are eventually accepted. Therefore, we are dealing with the controversy that surrounds 10 per cent. of applications. The Bill can only properly be described as an opportunity lost. It is not aimed at achieving a balanced planning system, but rather at fitting in with the Government's regionalist agenda. It was interesting that the Minister referred to that at the beginning of her speech. A sizeable portion of the Bill is aimed at steamrollering the English regions into a regional decision-making process, whether the region likes it or not.
	The introduction of regional spatial strategies in the Bill is the clearest indication yet of the Government's desire to bypass county councils and other long-standing democratic bodies in favour of their regionalist pipedream. Regional spatial strategies remove a key democratic input into the planning process. The Bill severely erodes democratic control over future planning developments. It is difficult to understand why the Government insist on a planning mechanism that provides no direct democratic means for people to express their concerns over planning decisions that affect their county or region. The proposed system lacks accountability and openness. Surely that will have only one result: increased public disenchantment with the planning system and a diminution of the legitimacy of planning. That can only mean poorer, more unpopular decisions at the end of the process.
	The Government see regional assemblies as the solution to the democratic gap in the planning Bill. That is highly presumptuous. The Government promised to give the people, via referendums, a say on whether or not they have an assembly, yet they impose a planning Bill that removes democratic accountability in the planning system unless people say yes in a referendum.
	If people do not vote for regional assemblies, whom will the Secretary of State designate for planning purposes? That is not clear in the Bill. Will it be the regional development agencies, whose performance varies enormously around the country, the Government offices under the control of unelected officials, or chambers, which are almost non-existent in certain areas? It would be helpful if the Minister who replies to the debate could make that clear.

David Drew: Labour Members may be confused. For good or ill, regional planning conferences have long had a role in the planning process. There may have been problems, because they could be in conflict with the counties or the districts. What is the hon. Gentleman's view on the future of regional planning conferences? He seems to be against the Government's regional drift. Does he think that regional planning conferences could be got rid of?

Eric Pickles: Regional planning conferences do not exist in every part of the country. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the engine for those conferences is the county council block. The county councils will be diminished by this process, and all their experience will disappear. The regional planning conferences are sometimes too restrictive. They prevent planning on matters in which adjoining authorities have a mutual interest but which do not fit into a particular structure in the region.
	It is our contention that the Bill is anti-democratic, and that the counties, rather than arbitrary regions, are a better level at which to make strategic and structural planning decisions. County councils have a clearer view of the real needs of their local area, and their grasp of the important strategic detail is superior to that of large-scale regional authorities. County councils allow for accountability and represent an area with which local people can readily identify. They also have a long-standing pool of expertise in planning and local knowledge, which will be squandered and frittered away by this legislation.
	Despite that, the role of county councils under the new arrangements is unclear. I heard what the Minister said, but it is unclear. Although county councils will still have control over minerals, waste, development and transport, according to the explanatory notes they will only be able to participate in the drawing up of local development plans. It is not clear how that is to be achieved and what their responsibility will be. I hope that it will be made clear in the Minister's winding-up speech, and if not, in Committee.
	Are the Government prepared to make it clear whether and how county councils will be involved in the process, especially in the drawing up of local development plans? How can they be drawn up without properly considered waste, minerals and transport strategies?

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying, almost in the same breath, that county councils are both local community authorities and strategic, semi-regional authorities. I am not sure that he can have it both ways. Which one does he plump for?

Eric Pickles: That is their strength, and it is why they are a good unit. The hon. Gentleman makes my point. County councils represent real people in real communities. They can link up if there is commonality of interest. That is why what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are seeking to do is such a travesty. The Bill rips power away from local people and diminishes accountability.

Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: Why the heck not? Let us go for it.

Andrew Love: I have been at meetings when members of the previous Conservative Government have confirmed that they seriously considered the abolition of the planning powers of county councils. Would the hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that?

Eric Pickles: I can certainly say that I have never been in the same room as the hon. Gentleman when such views were expressed.
	The Secretary of State is to be given virtual carte blanche to do as he wishes—he becomes a grand vizier of planning law. The tone of the Bill is set in part 1, which deals with regional functions. The Secretary of State will have enormous powers. Regional planning guidance issued by him forms part of the regional spatial strategy. The system effectively gives him prescriptive power of central control. He can control a regional spatial strategy that in turn controls a local development plan, which must comply with the regional plan. He even has powers to intervene in the creation of a local development scheme, and to revoke it altogether. He has powers to direct a local authority to withdraw, or to revise, its local development plan. He also has powers to order local authorities, against their wishes, to produce joint local development plans. Under the proposals for simplified planning zones and business improvement zones in the Local Government Bill, he can dictate policy against the wishes of local people.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the current planning system bequeathed to us by the previous Conservative Government, the Secretary of State has huge powers to call in almost any aspect—if not every aspect—of planning applications. Is it now Conservative policy to reverse that, and to reduce the powers of the Secretary of State within the planning system?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the planning system has been in existence in a proper, recognisable form for 50 years. As recently as five years ago, the relevant standard legal textbooks consisted of three volumes, but because of the continuous process of issuing new directives, there are now some 10 volumes. There is of course a point in the Secretary of State's being involved, but a balance must be struck between local communities and power at the centre. All that we are seeking to do is to redress that balance. We are trying not to remove the Secretary of State from the process, but to return to a proper balance. After all, the current planning system is part of the post-war consensus whereby people had trust in the system. My concern is that if we give too much power to the Secretary of State, people will lose confidence in the system.
	The proposals for major infrastructure projects, which were expanded on in a statutory instrument earlier this year, give the Secretary of State enormous powers to set timetables for inquiries, to reject evidence and to appoint inspectors. One aim of the planning process review was to enhance the involvement of local people, but this Bill fails to achieve that. Instead, it raises the powers of the Secretary of State by several notches. The planning system will become overwhelmingly top-down. The Secretary of State will have an omnipresent role in the planning process.
	This legislation also clearly fails in its declared aim of speeding up and simplifying the planning system. In fact, the Government may actually have achieved the impossible by making this highly bureaucratic system a smidgen more bureaucratic. Let us consider the example of the document on local development, which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) mentioned earlier. The Bill is in a huge muddle about the overlap between a local development framework and a local development plan. Added to this confusion is the remarkable cocktail of local development orders, local development principles and provision for the Secretary of State to set fees and charges for a range of planning functions. The result can only be a more complex and expensive planning system, with several more layers and tiers than existed before the Bill came into being.
	The Government may come eternally to regret their explanation of clause 37, which deals with the development plan. The explanatory notes state:
	"Clause 37 defines the development plan by reference to the simplified hierarchy of plans and documents created by this Bill."
	This is anything but a simplified system. The Minister mentioned Wales at the end of her speech, but in Wales there is no question of tiers. A much more simplified and less complicated system exists there in respect of documentation, and I hope that we will be offered an explanation of why what is good enough for Wales is not good enough for England.
	This confusion and bureaucracy expands beyond local development plans and infects the rest of the Bill. Under the terms of clause 38, in drawing up the regional spatial strategy and local development plans a sustainable development plan must be drawn up in parallel. That is in addition to the homelessness plan that local authorities are obliged to produce under the Bill on homelessness, and to the housing plan contained in the Local Government Bill. Is it not possible that local authorities could simply collapse under the burden of these well-meaning but bureaucratic plans? How will this great bucket of plans complement each other and mesh together? The Bill totally fails in its desire to increase certainty in planning for business.
	Statements of development principles are proposed as a replacement for outline planning permission, but the latter is a far stronger legal entity than the proposed new system. Companies often use the certainty provided by outline planning permission to raise funds for ventures, and to plan for the medium or long term. This legal certainty will be lost under the proposed changes, causing delay and perhaps making planning, finance raising and job creation more difficult for business. It is hard to see what statements of development principles add to the planning process, other than providing yet another target for judicial review. They do not provide a developer with a proper equivalent to, or any promise of, planning permission. The Green Paper seemed to suggest that the new system would run in tandem with the old outline planning permission, so that any major problems could be ironed out, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. Can the Minister clarify the transitional arrangements?
	Because the Minister concerned is the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), and because it is getting close to Christmas, I have tried to find an aspect of the Bill about which I could say something nice. I hit upon the idea of compulsory purchase, but unfortunately part 7 , which deals with that, is not as welcome as it might first appear. We welcome compensation for landowners whose land is acquired, but the basic loss payment will be subject to a maximum amount, and in July the Deputy Prime Minister stated that property owners will be paid Xhope value" for any possible planning gain. As a result, owners of some larger properties will actually be paid less than they are entitled to. Far from being more generous, the Bill is actually confiscatory. That is especially evident when we consider that the payment of compensation to property owners could take up to seven years. There is a great deal of justified complaint that current compulsory purchase claims take years to be settled.

Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: In a moment.
	An interesting feature of this Bill is what is not included in it. No mention is made of third party right of appeal. Is the Minister prepared to rethink this omission, particularly in circumstances where a local authority gives planning permission for its own land? I have talked about the three principles involved, and the issue is one of acceptability. For a local authority to grant itself permission, and for those affected to have no redress, looks wrong and feels wrong.

Andrew MacKinlay: I hope that I can catch the hon. Gentleman on clause 43, on which the Minister did not amplify sufficiently. On omissions, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the official record will show tomorrow that neither the Minister nor—until now—the hon. Gentleman has referred to planning enforcement. One of the big problems is that, unless dilatory local authorities can pursue planning enforcement with vigour—in fact, they are tardy—all this great machinery will come to nought, particularly for the small person, whose visual and aural amenity will be trespassed by selfish people who ignore planning law, and who are not chased by local authorities.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine share a border, and although we do not represent the same authorities, we share some of the same problems. Sometimes, because we say a certain thing, we think that action has been taken and the matter has been dealt with. The extra #350 million has been welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman), but planning officers are needed to put that money to use. Local authority planning departments are grossly overstaffed. Planning officers who are properly trained soon find themselves in the private sector. Enforcement actions do not take place because local authorities are being squeezed by the Government and decide to put their money somewhere else. Often, frustrated constituents tell me that nothing has happened even though the local authority was supposed to take enforcement action. Even when such actions are taken, they can be appealed. The Bill could have dealt with that problem and speeded up the enforcement process.

Edward Davey: I think that I agree with the hon. Gentleman about third party right of appeal, although he needs to clarify the little that he said. I also agree with him about enforcement, but he said that the Government's proposed limit on compulsory purchase could be too low. Does he not realise that any limit that was even a little higher would make many regeneration projects prohibitively expensive?

Eric Pickles: I shall answer that point in a second, but first I must apologise to the House. In my gross excitement about planning, I may have suggested that local authority planning departments were overstaffed. In fact, I know that I did, as my boss, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), has just ticked me off. What I meant to say—what was in the Pickles mind—was that planning offices were understaffed. I apologise if I have inadvertently misled hon. Members about the state of local authorities which, I repeat, are understaffed.

Andrew MacKinlay: Especially when it comes to enforcement officers.

Eric Pickles: As the hon. Gentleman says, especially when it comes to enforcement officers.
	One problem with the compulsory purchase process is the long time spent haggling over prices. No one suggests that people should be paid above the market price, but the Bill makes it possible for them to be paid less than that price. If we are to learn from the way in which compulsory purchase operates elsewhere, we must be able to pick up how that problem is dealt with.
	The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned major infrastructure projects. I understand that he has strong feelings about what happened at Heathrow. It is important that the Government clearly indicate whether they support major infrastructure projects. A big test will be coming soon, in respect of the decisions about extra runways in the south-east.

Andrew MacKinlay: I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who will reply to the debate, will make matters clearer. The guidance notes do not make it clear that there will be a planning inquiry in the traditional form when an inspector is appointed under clause 43. It might be implicit, but that provision is not made explicit in either the Bill or the accompanying explanatory notes. I want to safeguard the rights of the individual—the cussed, awkward, bloody-minded individual. It was people like that who fought the big battalions, such as the British Airports Authority, during the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry, and they will wish to do the same again. We need an undertaking that they will not be squeezed out, and that there will always be a proper inquiry in connection with clause 43.

Eric Pickles: My understanding is that the Secretary of State will direct the procedure. However, I am sure that the Under-Secretary will answer that point when he replies to the debate.
	I have forgotten the name of the inspector in the terminal 5 inquiry, for which I apologise, but I have read his evidence to the Select Committee. I thought that the reasons given for the delay were telling. It was not secured by bloody-minded individuals so much as caused by the system. The lack of direction caused delays for all sorts of reasons.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the proximity of Christmas. He stated that local authorities' planning departments were understaffed, so will he confirm, in the spirit of goodwill, that he favours the appointment of large numbers of additional officers? Is that official Opposition policy? Does he have information to offer the House about the costing that the policy wonks will no doubt have done on the policy?

Eric Pickles: I have written to Santa Claus, but sadly I did not ask for any additional planning officers. My substantive point is that remuneration levels for appropriately qualified people in the private sector are high, and that that adds to the difficulties faced by local authority planning departments. A person qualified in town and country planning is likely to make significantly more money in the private sector than in the local authority sector. However, I am sure that the Government Whips will be awfully pleased with that question. The hon. Gentleman may get a prize after Christmas.

Peter Bradley: rose—

Anthony Steen: rose—

Eric Pickles: The time has come for us to move on.

Anthony Steen: I am most grateful for that. I know when my time has come, and I want to ask my hon. Friend about compensation. Some other European countries have been able to make speedy progress with major infrastructure projects because they are willing to pay compensation at above market values. I disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that paying compensation at above the market value would speed up major infrastructure projects, as they would not be delayed by people haggling over small sums. Does he agree that that is an attractive approach that the Opposition should consider carefully?

Eric Pickles: There is some truth in what my hon. Friend says. We should aim to ensure that the normal, generous market value is paid, but my point is that there should be no artificial ceiling that could prevent the process from going forward.
	This Bill is a wasted opportunity, and that is tragic. The UK needs a modern and effective planning system so that it can compete in the 21st century. The Government are right that the planning system needs fundamental reform, but the proposed system is too slow, uncertain and bureaucratic. It does not allow enough input from business or the public.
	The proposed changes will, if anything, make matters worse. The new system is more complex and top-down than what it replaces, and it offers less room for public participation. We cannot afford to get this reform wrong. Mistakes now could have damaging consequences for this country for years to come. The reforms need to be thoughtful, balanced and intelligent. They should increase the legitimacy of the planning process and enhance its effectiveness. The Bill clearly fails to do that.
	The Minister, when she opened the debate, used her Department's favourite buzz words when she said that the Bill would be a Xstep change" for planning. I agree: the Bill does represent a significant step change for planning—it is a step change towards chaos and muddle, and it is a step change backwards. I urge the Government to reconsider the Bill.

Andrew Bennett: I suspect that when the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) reads his speech, he will conclude that much more of it should have taken the form of footnotes rather than actually being delivered. He complained, for instance, that my hon. Friend the Minister had not made much reference to the Bill, but he did not seem to refer to it much himself. Worse, he did not seem to recognise the country in which I think we live—a country in which regional effort is becoming important.
	When the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee took evidence yesterday, we discussed land in Warrington. The use of that land, for housing or for industrial development, has a direct effect on regeneration in Liverpool and east Manchester. Unless we are prepared to accept that there is now a regional dimension in this country, we will find ourselves in real difficulty. In the case of an awful lot of planning issues, we must look at the region.
	The best part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was, in fact, his reference to an earlier intervention. We should pay tribute to the 1945 Labour Government who established the town and country planning system, which is one of the jewels in our crown. For more than 50 years it worked pretty well, although there was a slight hiccup when Nicholas Ridley wanted to tear it all up. That led to some of the worst out-of-town planning, and one or two other bits went wrong. Nevertheless, we need only look at national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and historic towns to see that our planning system has protected them from developments that might have ruined them—although they might also have made someone a quick short-term profit.
	The planning system also protects many people who might otherwise have to live close to areas that are unattractive, whether because of local industry or because of leisure activities. We should remind people that it has served the country well. We should also remind them that we live on a small island with a large population, where difficult planning decisions will always have to be made.
	One thing that worries me about the Bill is that it results from a myth. Unfortunately, when Lord Falconer joined the Department 15 months ago, he almost swallowed that myth hook, line and sinker. The myth, produced particularly by the Confederation of British Industry, is that our planning system makes us uncompetitive. That is nonsense. Lord Falconer should have learnt a lesson that many Ministers need to learn. Departments that can do things can often do them without legislation; it is those who cannot run their own Departments who say, XA Bill will enable us to put off the delivery of results until we have got the legislation through the House." It is to the credit of the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Rooker and other Ministers that they listened to criticism at the time of the Green Paper, and have modified the Bill significantly. Moreover, the Department has recognised that many improvements in planning can be brought about through resources and administration rather than a big change in the legislation.

John Pugh: Is the hon. Gentleman categorically disagreeing with the Minister, who said that a step change was required and would be secured? He just said that no big change was needed.

Andrew Bennett: I do not mind if we claim that it is a step change if that makes people behave in a slightly different way, but I firmly believe that the legislation is not all that necessary. What is important is the administrative change that has been promised. I do not think that we should complain that the Government have backed away from their Green Paper and come up with a much more realistic approach; indeed, they should be given credit for that. We should be proud of the fact that they published a Green Paper and then listened to the responses, including those of the Select Committee. I think that as a result we have better legislation, and I hope that better administrative action from the Department will follow.
	Let me deal briefly with the myth about the planning system. When the Select Committee was considering the Green Paper, the director general of the CBI told us very firmly that, according to survey after survey, the planning system was destroying our competitiveness. When we asked for evidence, he could not provide it. During this morning's sitting, the best another CBI representative could do was tell us that the CBI had asked MORI to conduct a further survey, which had shown that the planning system was a problem. When we asked how important the problem was, we were told that it ranked 13th out of 15.
	Let us be clear about this. Our planning system does not limit productivity. For one thing, many companies never use it; levels of investment are much more important to them. The planning system does not make a huge difference to our effectiveness.
	I think that the culture change, rather than the step change, is important. We need to ensure that planning departments are enablers rather than disablers—that they work hard, from the start of a planning application or, indeed, before the application is made—to ensure that the proposal is in the interests of both developer and local community. That comes down to the question of resources. When we had an exchange in the Select Committee about whether the extra money would be ring-fenced, I thought Lord Rooker was pretty good: he said that it would not be ring-fenced, but that he could guarantee that it would be spent on planning. If that can be achieved, full marks.
	There are some problems, however. It is important for the money to be spent, but it can be spent only if there are people with the necessary skills. Sadly we have run down the number of planners in the country, and we have also run down respect for them. I hope that during the Bill's passage the Government will tell us more about how we are to secure more planners. To an extent, we must consider the way in which geography is taught in schools and the fact that some pupils are pushed into making a choice at 15. Far more should be encouraged to continue with geography, which can enable them subsequently to work in the earth sciences or in planning departments. I fear that, in that regard, the national curriculum is too prescriptive.

Elfyn Llwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman know of research recently carried out in Scotland? I think that it is something to do with Edinburgh university. When all the planning students in a certain year were asked about their hopes, not one said that he or she hoped to work in a planning department.

Andrew Bennett: That is worrying. We need to give planning back its status. Nowadays everyone criticises planners rather than recognising their important role.
	We need more resources and we need more planners, but it is also important for the planners to think in terms of enabling. The Select Committee took evidence from the City of London corporation, which is pretty well resourced, about its attempts to get its planners to talk to developers at an early stage and show them how they can deal with the regulations and the planning process. Many more local authorities should do that, especially when it comes to building control. Some of the criticism of the planning system is not about the allocation of particular sites, but about the nitty-gritty: how can extractor fans be installed so that they do not disturb local people, for instance, and how can it be ensured that in summer, when doors are left open, people on an estate do not suffer from the noise?

David Drew: When people try to find out what decisions are being made, they are often frustrated by the absence of contemporaneous reports of meetings with developers. That means that people requiring information receive it only when a development is under way.

Andrew Bennett: May I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the evidence that we took this morning, particularly the Minister's response on this issue about how far one can get greater transparency at the beginning of the process? To a certain extent, the Minister understood the problem, and was coming up with part of the solution.

Alan Simpson: In relation to his point about enhancing the role of planning officers and the authority that they carry with them, has my hon. Friend's Committee considered the points being made by the police? They are talking about not just where one puts the fans, but the role of planning officers in designing out crime. The point has been made that the Bill would be strengthened if planning processors were required to address section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which the Government introduced and which the police are saying has made an enormous difference to communities and to commercial interests in designing out the costs of crime at an early stage in the planning process.

Andrew Bennett: I accept that point. It is a question of bringing to bear on the planning process all the resources of the local authority—the police, planners and others—so that we get good developments that do not create problems but set out to solve them.
	I have talked about the problems of training and I should like to press the Minister on compulsory purchase orders. The parts of the Bill dealing with CPOs are some of the most welcome. Part of the problem is that local authorities got out of the habit of using CPOs and now find them cumbersome. Some of those who worked for local authorities during the 1960s and knocked out a CPO almost every day would say that the legislation has not changed much, but that lack of familiarity is the problem. The problem that has been put to me by local authorities is that, often, one does not want to have to go right through the CPO process. They want to persuade people to settle so that they can buy them out without having to go through that process. The problem for some local authorities is that they put together a back-to-back deal so that the land is immediately passed on to a developer. If local authorities hold the land for only 24 hours, they can stand the interest charges, but if they buy six or nine months in advance of the CPO, they have a problem with the financing. I hope that we will look at the law relating to CPOs and at some of the issues about financing.
	In the Select Committee this morning, the Minister gave us the valuable assurance that the regulations will be available before the Bill goes into Committee. That will make scrutiny much easier. I hope that at some point the Minister will explain the transition. One of my reservations about having legislation involves the transition. The present system can be cumbersome, but people understand it, and in three or four years we will have the new system that people will have got used to. Between those stages there is the transition and we do not want a hiatus so that obtaining planning permission is more difficult during the next couple of years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. I do not agree with everything that he has said, but his speech has been thoughtful and well considered and he does seem to be asking for greater certainty in the planning system. Will he comment on clause 40, which abolishes outline planning permission and introduces a statement of development principles instead? That would be a far less certain procedure and would not give businesses the ability to plan their developments with certainty.

Andrew Bennett: One cannot say categorically yes or no to that. We will have to see how things evolve. That is very much in the area of guidance. If the Government produce clear guidance, such problems may be solved.
	I was about to give a firm thank you from my constituents to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for turning down the development at Audenshaw, Waterside park, formerly Kingswater park. Having a business park beside the motorway would encourage people to drive around the motorway to work. I also thank him for his decision to turn down the proposal for a large IKEA store in Stockport, which would generate traffic. We should use the planning system to reduce the need for travel. Our society is far too fragmented and people are encouraged to do a great deal of travelling. For most people, spending time in a traffic jam on a motorway is not attractive.
	It is important that the planning system works quickly. I hope that the Government will guarantee to set an example from the top and that Ministers will reach decisions quickly, setting that example for local authorities and the planning system. We should remember that our planning system was a jewel in the crown and, with this legislation, we should ensure that it continues to sparkle.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friends the Members for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) may not agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) about IKEA, but I congratulate him on his speech and on his Select Committee's report on the planning Green Paper. I believe that the report influenced the Government's thinking and was the main factor in encouraging them to change their mind about some of the Green Paper's more distasteful aspects, such as its proposals on national planning decisions for major infrastructure projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) served on the Select Committee and has told me about the hon. Gentleman's good leadership.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about staff in planning departments. Staffing is probably the major weakness of the planning system, and he was right to dwell on it. I am sure that he is aware that undergraduate courses on planning are increasingly unpopular. The Government must work to reverse that decline. I am sure that he is aware of some research that was conducted by the Department that used to have responsibility for planning, which showed that, on average, planning departments across the country were short of four or five staff. That represents a huge national shortage. The research also dealt with issues such as the failure of local authorities to enforce some aspects of the planning system, which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned. We need those staff so that such work can be done. The Government's announcement last July of #350 million was a welcome first step towards rectifying the core problem.

Sydney Chapman: As I understood the Minister, she said that the money would not be ring-fenced. The memorandum says that it will go to local planning authorities that manage to deliver an efficient planning service, but surely it is a question of the chicken and the egg. Local planning authorities need part of that extra allocation to improve their performance, and, if they succeed, by all means, give them bonuses.

Edward Davey: I agree about the chicken and egg, but I do not agree about ring-fencing. There is too much ring-fencing in local government finance and the Government are right to resist that temptation.
	Only the Minister will realise what a great thrill it is for me to speak on Second Reading of this Bill. I last debated with her when she was a Treasury Minister dealing with a Finance Bill. It is a particular pleasure for me to debate planning with her.

Eric Pickles: What a smooth talking young lad.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I am a smooth talker, but I will let the Minister make that decision.
	During the run-up to the Bill, the Government's thinking on planning has undergone many changes. At times, they appeared to be unsure about what they wanted to do about planning, and contradiction and confusion is reflected in the Bill. The Government talk about decentralising planning powers, but the proposed regional structures, which would give the Secretary of State extra powers, do not appear to decentralise a thing; if anything, they will cement the centralisation of the existing system.
	The explanatory notes and all the rhetoric before the debate suggested that the Bill would speed up the planning system, but many aspects of the local development plans, to which the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred and which will doubtless be debated not only tonight but in Committee, will slow up the system and make it far more inefficient.
	Those failures spring from the Government's lack of vision on planning. Sometimes, the Government are almost apologetic about the planning system, and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish came close to suggesting as much. We should be proud of our planning system; it has a great role. It was the 1909 Liberal Government who first legislated for a planning system—an important move to ensure that development produced benefits for society. After the second world war, the Labour Government introduced important planning legislation, which developed the system and bequeathed us our current procedures.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If the hon. Gentleman studies his history carefully, he will find that Disraeli was the first to propose the establishment of a planning system and to set up slum clearance programmes.

Edward Davey: I do not really want to follow the hon. Gentleman into a historical debate; there is a big difference between slum clearance and actual planning policies.
	The problem is that the vision that the Labour Government showed in their Town and Country Planning Act 1947 is not reflected in the Bill. The present Government are torn between their new Labour instincts to suck up to business and the reality experienced by Ministers, who understand how the planning system works in their constituencies and the tension in reconciling community interests. The Government do not know how to deal with that dilemma, so they have tried to split the difference and this unsatisfactory Bill is the result.
	We welcome some aspects of the Bill, such as, its provisions that contain the germ of ideas that will give us a real vision for planning. It will be interesting to hear the Select Committee's views on such provisions. For example, clause 38 would make sustainable development a key test in planning decisions, which is welcome. However, although the Minister explained what she meant by Xsustainable development", there is no such explanation in the Bill, and that could cause problems. The Government should have been braver and set out clearly what they meant by that welcome provision.
	Clause 17 provides for a statement of Xcommunity involvement". That, too, is welcome as far as it goes, but it is vague and I shall develop that point later in my speech.

Andrew Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about sustainable development, what definition would he table as an amendment?

Edward Davey: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Town and Country Planning Association has proposed an amendment that would give such a definition. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who will serve on the Standing Committee, may table it.
	We welcome other changes proposed in the Bill. There is already some agreement about compulsory purchase powers and about the extra flexibility in development controls. We especially welcome the proposals for Wales. As a result of the Bill, Wales will have a much better system than England, although we might ask whether the National Assembly for Wales should not already have the power to debate such legislation, rather than it being debated in this place. However, we shall let that point pass—at least Wales will get a better deal than England.

Roger Williams: People in Wales welcome the Bill—although, as my hon. Friend pointed out, many of its regulation-making powers should have been devolved to the Assembly. The proposed spatial strategies will allow Wales to take a much more strategic approach to issues such as renewable energy and wind farm development.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right. I hope that the Assembly will seize the opportunity to create a much better planning system in Wales.
	Our major problem with the Bill is the centralising tendency that underpins it. As has been pointed out, we already have a centralised system, although when I challenged the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar on that point he was not quite prepared to admit that it was the fault of previous Conservative Governments, who bequeathed us that system. However, the Labour Government have achieved what seemed almost impossible—they have made the system even more centralised. Instead of passing powers—such as those in the current transport and works framework—from Parliament down to regional planning bodies, or to the future regional assemblies, they have taken powers back from county councils, thus increasing centralisation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues states that the House declines to give the Bill a Second Reading
	Xbecause it gives extra powers to unelected and unaccountable regional bodies".
	I thought that the Liberal party was all in favour of regionalism and regional bodies. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's policy?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to do so. We believe in elected regional assemblies. When we have accountable, elected regional assemblies, that will be the right time to give them real planning powers.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: But we are debating the Bill now.

Edward Davey: My criticism of the Bill—if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument—is that it would give some planning powers to unelected regional planning bodies, which would, in effect, be quangos. We oppose that. To centralise is bad enough, but to centralise power in unelected, unaccountable bodies is unacceptable. That is one of our reasons for opposing the Bill.
	To be fair to the Government, we could say that the Bill and other measures, such as the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, are merely preparatory and that they precede regional devolution across England. We might be that generous if the Government were truly pushing ahead with regional devolution, but the caution and timidity with which they are approaching that key constitutional change mean that we cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar pointed out, under the Government's framework it may be years or even decades—perhaps never—before some regions have elected assemblies, yet the new planning bodies or quangos would take powers from county councils up to the centre, and that cannot be right.
	We oppose not merely the centralisation proposed in the Bill but the way in which it is being pushed through. County councils will simply be agents of the regional bodies.
	Our other major criticism of the Bill is that it will do the reverse of what the Government claim. It will not speed up the planning process. If the Government had gone for genuine decentralisation, they would have removed many of the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in each and every planning application; removing that upper tier of intervention and interference would be the best way of speeding up the planning process. However, the Bill proposes a set of local development frameworks, schemes, documents, statements of community involvement and optional action plans that together will not produce a simpler system or a speedier process.
	The Government are the only people who seem to think that streamlining something means adding to it. The current system of unitary development plans and local plans is not perfect, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House will agree, but it has improved as it has gone along. A much better approach to reform would have been to build on those improvements rather than to tear up the system.
	The current system passes an important test—my weekly advice surgery test. Constituents bring a lot of issues to our advice surgeries, many of which relate to Departments, the Government's tax and benefit systems and so on. It is often very difficult to give constituents the answers that they want to hear, and I have to refer them to other bodies. I am delighted to say that Members of Parliament do not have a central role in planning, but at least we can explain how the system works and where the constituent can obtain redress. I fear that that will become impossible under the plethora of new plans, schemes, documents, statements and so on. That is a backward step.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has the Liberal party considered community involvement? In an intervention on the Minister I stated that the Bill provides for community involvement in drawing up local development documents, but not in drawing up regional spatial strategies, which will, in effect, inform local development documents. That will circumvent any community involvement. Has the hon. Gentleman considered how community involvement may be improved in drawing up regional spatial strategies?

Edward Davey: I have indeed. Liberal Democrats want elected regional assemblies so that elected representatives can help to provide that community involvement. As a regional planning tier has existed for some time, it is incumbent on the hon. Gentleman and his party, who oppose regional assemblies, to say how they would involve communities in regional planning.
	The proposals on the local development process are many and complex. When one reads clause 37(6), one might think that things will be a little easier than I have led the House to believe because it says that only the development plan documents will be used to determine planning applications. That seems a lot simpler than the plethora of schemes and frameworks that I have mentioned, but the problem is that under another part of the Bill a local authority can decide what constitutes a development plan document.
	Clause 17 refers to the statement of community involvement
	Xas if it were a development plan document",
	as though the local authority does not have the power to determine that issue anyway, so there are many contradictions and much confusion in the new process that the Government propose. It is supposed to be clear, but I am afraid that it has the clarity of the mud bath.
	I do not agree with many of the CBI's comments on the Bill, but it has touched on something in its briefing for today's debate when it says:
	XThis framework will be too multi-layered and complex and will increase the workload of local authorities. It is not obvious to us that the proposals will provide the clarity and simplicity that business needs."
	That is absolutely right; the planning system needs to be relatively transparent not just for business but for members of the public. If it is not clear and Members of Parliament are not easily able to explain it at their surgeries, we lose the current system's element of accountability, which is so important. I fear that that complexity will get even worse by the time the courts get their mitts on the Bill. If the Government's intention is not obvious to us in Parliament as we debate it, I am sure that the judges will have quite a lot to say about it.

Elfyn Llwyd: The judges are normally guided by what we think.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is indeed right, but the judges will have a problem because of the contradictions and confusion in the Bill.
	With local development, we have change for its own sake. Rather than building on something that could be improved and enhanced, the Government have decided to tear things up. That is a mistake not only because of the resulting lack of simplicity, but because there will be many transitional costs. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish touched on the point that high transitional costs are involved in moving from one planning system to another. A proper cost-benefit analysis would show that the benefits of the system, even according to the Government's own terms, would not outweigh the cost of the transition.
	Another contentious issue is whether the Bill is business friendly. We can look at the CBI briefing and those of other business organisations and take our pick, but some of us are concerned about the core proposal on business planning zones—they are called simplified planning zones in the Bill—which is supposed to make the Bill business-friendly. Two arguments relate to simplified planning zones. People who share my concerns believe that they could result in the planning system being pushed aside, resulting in poor design quality, a lack of accountability and thus bad planning. If that argument proves correct, those zones will clearly be a bad thing. Other people argue that, in fact, the proposals will make little difference.
	The legal framework for simplified planning zones already exists in planning legislation and all that the clauses on those zones will do is slightly change the process in respect of regional planning bodies. I hope that the Minister will say whether she thinks that simplified planning zones will make a difference; many people's final judgment on the Bill will depend on her answer.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing caution? I represent the port of Tilbury—indeed, my constituency home is by the port—and, in essence, it is already a simplified planning zone. By and large, it is not subject to normal development controls, but, of course, it has residential neighbours, and developments in port technology have often caused problems with noise and light pollution. We need to be careful not to create problems for future generations; what may be a superficially attractive scheme to help business could present other people with problems in the future.

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right. My worry is that the thinking behind the Bill comes from the Treasury, not the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps that is why the measure had been cut slightly by the time it had reached that office. A few months ago, the Chancellor was very keen to respond to the business community's argument that the planning system was a real drag on competitiveness and productivity, and a few soundbites and press releases came from Great George street. The proposals look like a sop to the Chancellor. If they are as effective as some Ministers claim, that will be a worry and the hon. Gentleman will be right in what he says.
	My final major criticism of the Bill relates to community involvement. At the start of my remarks, I said that clause 17 might prove to be a welcome development, but the problem is that it is difficult to tell whether that is so from that clause, the explanatory notes and all the other related documents that the Government have issued. The Government have phrased community development in a very non-prescriptive way. That may be a good idea, because such involvement needs to reflect the communities in different parts of the country and one size clearly will not fit all of them.
	Not being over-prescriptive is perhaps the right approach, but the danger in not providing clarity is that the power might become a damp squib and community involvement in planning might become superficial rather than profound. I hope that the Government will either be more specific in their guidance on community involvement or accept amendments to clause 17.

David Drew: I have some reservations, but the danger is that we try to pretend that we can legislate in an all-embracing way. Some of the work done in rural areas in respect of village appraisals and village design statements speaks volumes for what communities can do. I would never pretend that we can legislate to make every community do that, but surely that is how we should take this forward.

Edward Davey: I am interested to hear about the good practice in the hon. Gentleman's area. I have seen examples of good practice in other areas, and he is right to say that we cannot be over-prescriptive, which was my point. Perhaps we can be prescriptive, however, about what will be some of the features of good community involvement—for example, in relation to information provision and the advice that might be available to members of the public or to applicants, to make sure that there are clear standards by which to judge whether planning authorities and applicants have involved the community. Perhaps we could go one stage further—this would be controversial—by making it a statutory requirement, before applications are put to a planning authority, that developers have engaged in some early community consultation. That might promote good practice within the private sector, as there is certainly a need for that.
	There are many aspects of the Bill that I have not been able to cover in my short remarks. I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the Liberal Democrats are concerned about the centralisation and complexity in the Bill and its lack of clear vision for the planning system. What we need is a planning system that is more accountable and that has sustainability built even more firmly into its foundations. Through such features, we can have a truly efficient planning system.

David Wright: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I get more letters about planning applications than anything else, as I am sure many other hon. Members do. That is a sign that local people do not understand the planning system as it operates in this country, contrary to what some Opposition Members have suggested. Many people think that their MP has a veto over planning applications, and often we have to point them in the right direction in planning terms.
	The Bill is particularly welcome because it sits alongside a raft of proposed legislation to make regeneration effective and give local people the opportunity to influence change in their neighbourhoods. Contrary to the comments of some Opposition Members, the Bill has had a broad welcome from several quarters, including the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Mr. Mike Haslam, president of the Royal Town Planning Institute, has said:
	XThe bill gives the planning system the power and new measures to achieve sustainable development and to influence private and public investment. It places planning and people at the heart of decisions about the futures of our towns, cities and rural areas".
	I endorse those comments because I believe that the planning process is at the heart of regeneration.
	I am conscious that many Members want to speak, so I shall try to be relatively brief. I want to focus on four key areas: regional planning structures; local planning arrangements; development control matters; and compulsory purchase issues.
	First, on regional planning, the Bill envisages the replacement of regional planning guidance with regional spatial strategies. That is more than just a change in name: there will be a change in style with more focus on the spatial form of the region and a move away from a policy-based document. It is important that the new strategies give spatial expression to, among other issues, regional transport and economic and environmental plans. All that is to be welcomed. In one sense, it repairs the damage inflicted on strategic planning throughout the 1980s by the Conservative party. In another sense, it is a new, modern planning agenda that reflects best practice across the whole European Community.
	As we have heard, the new strategies will be led by a regional planning body, and, in the interim period, the regional assembly. I accept some of the criticism that that interim arrangement, prior to the establishment of an elected structure, takes away some democratic accountability in relation to county councils. There is a danger that the larger planning authorities will continue to drive the regional spatial strategy and base their decisions on what is best for their authorities rather than for the region as a whole. However, that is what happens now through the current regional planning structure. The counties often fail to engage fully in the regional planning process, which is a significant weakness across the country.
	It is important that the regional planning body has the appropriate level of staffing to prepare the regional strategy statement, and that the skills and views of the counties are taken fully into account. I accept that there is a danger that the proper functioning of sub-regional planning will become too dependent on regional government and the subsequent local government reforms. However, the system is not working well at present. In relation to housing target figures in particular, across many county areas, there is no coherence between what is being planned in metropolitan areas and what county councils are delivering on the ground, especially in large rural counties. We must understand that there is interdependence between housing target figures in metropolitan areas and large towns and what is being provided in rural areas.
	We need to ensure that sub-regional planning is given a dedicated role within regional planning to deal with important issues such as housing. Of course, the more quickly we can move to a comprehensive structure of regional government, the better. A key issue in the development of regional spatial strategies will be the interrelationship with regional development agencies, which has not been covered in much detail this evening. It would help if that could be more clearly defined in the Bill, which is light on comments about the role of regional development agencies, particularly in relation to economic development and transport.
	Secondly, on local planning arrangements, local plans, unitary development plans and structure plans are to be replaced by local development schemes, and every local planning authority must prepare a local development scheme that will set out what local development documents the authority will produce and a time scale for publication. I hope that that will enhance local priority setting and enable local planning authorities to focus on trying to build character into the urban form in many of our towns and cities—something that is very much absent in the current unitary development planning framework.
	Each development plan document will be subject to independent examination, with the emphasis on testing the overall soundness of the plan. The process is intended to be less formal, and that is welcome. Regulations will need to make it clear what role, if any, legal representatives will be able to play in any examination process. In general, anything that helps to engage local people through more informal debate on planning issues will make the planning system more accessible and user-friendly.
	I particularly welcome clause 26, which requires authorities that are currently incredibly slow to produce their development plans in good time. It is not acceptable that 10 to 15 per cent. of authorities still do not have effective unitary development plan structures some years after the relevant legislation came into effect. That means that developers in many areas cannot plan effectively, and local communities cannot interact with their local authority in understanding how the planning regime is going to work in their area.
	The Bill contains a statutory duty for all development plans to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. That is an important and welcome statement, and I join the Liberal Democrat spokesman in calling on the Government to define their objectives on sustainable development more clearly. I would like some comments not only about design matters and enhancing the quality of the urban form but about sustainability in rural communities, especially in relation to providing affordable housing for people in need in those environments.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the Bill requires simplified planning zones to have environmental impact assessments, which will undoubtedly require details of design to be submitted, yet, for all other planning, it does not require design details to be given before the application is submitted? Does not he think that that is an inconsistency?

David Wright: No, because I imagine—I certainly hope—that when local planning authorities look at the contents of their local scheme and their local development framework, they will take on board those issues. When responding to applicants, they will be able to say clearly what they expect in terms of design and quality. I do not, therefore, see a problem in that regard. In fact, the process enhances the current arrangement.
	My third point relates to development control, the key issue in which is certainty for applicants. The proposed statement of development principles is a major step forward. Many local planning authorities need to be much more open in dealing with applicants and they should give better professional advice. At the moment, many authorities do not meet applicants about submitted applications and the first thing that the applicant hears is when the authority says yes or no to the application. That is not acceptable.
	I strongly welcome the Government's change of mind on major projects of national or regional importance. The Bill's proposals offer a much better solution. I was on the Procedure Committee, which recently began an investigation into the major infrastructure project process, and it concluded that the Government's previous proposal would not have been effective and would have bogged the House down with an enormous amount of work on planning matters. The proposal in the Bill is a good compromise.
	Finally, I should like to discuss compulsory purchase. Land assembly issues and land assembly for regeneration are incredibly important. The present system is cumbersome and many of the skills that have been used over the years in compulsory purchase cases have been lost. In the 1980s, the then Government's view was that the market could deal with most regeneration issues and authorities were encouraged not to use compulsory purchase powers but to try to let the market dictate the system. Unfortunately, as we have seen in many areas, that does not work. We need the effective and smooth power of compulsory purchase to deliver major regeneration projects. We have failed, in many senses, on that agenda in the past and I would like to think that the Bill will start to put some of the problems right.
	The Bill will enhance the power of local planning authorities to obtain land by compulsory purchase by widening the definition of the objectives that compulsory purchase must achieve. There is now a need to prove that the project will contribute to the economic, social or environmental well-being of an area, and that must remain a feature of the compulsory purchase process. As we have heard, the Bill will introduce a fairer compensation scheme, covering a wider range of owners and occupiers. There is a need to ensure that the benefits of compulsory purchase orders are fully understood at the local level and that capital resources are available to enable authorities to take positive action. Flexibility for local authorities will be critical.
	I hope that, over the next three years, some of the Government's resources for investing in skills in planning will go into enhancing the skills needed to implement compulsory purchase orders and that that will link across into wider regeneration activity. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on that when he winds up.

Sydney Chapman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). The Bill's purpose is put plainly and simply in the explanatory notes. It is designed
	Xto speed up the planning system".
	My view is that the planning system can be speeded up by making relatively few amendments to the existing legislation.
	I share a certain disappointment that the Bill does not contain a clearer and stronger statement on the purpose of planning. The public perceive planning to be a negative instrument when, as someone said earlier, it should enable people to get the right development in the right place at the right time. I commend the Town and Country Planning Association's definition, which states:
	XThe purpose of planning is to help ensure that suitable land is available for development in ways that accord with economic, social and environmental goals and that such development is consistent with the principles of sustainable development."
	I am also slightly disappointed that there is no definition of sustainable development in the Bill. I know that it is difficult to come up with one, as I am chairman of the 44-nation Council of Europe committee on sustainable development. I offered a prize at the world summit in Johannesburg recently to the person who could give the simplest and shortest definition of sustainable development. I was speaking globally, but I got the definition down to eight words. It is Xconserving finite resources of Earth for future generations". However, a more homely definition of sustainable development—exactly what the Government are trying to achieve—could appear in the Bill.
	It may be appropriate to declare what I might best describe as a reverse financial interest. I have been a member and fellow of the Royal Town Planning Institute for 40 years. Unfortunately, the requirements of continuing professional development have caught up with me, and I have been advised that it might be a good thing if I applied for retired membership status. That would save me a considerable amount of money, but I thought of sending the institute 28 years of Hansard to try to show what I have been doing and the interest that I have continued to take in town and country planning issues. None the less, I declare a possible interest as a member of the institute.
	The detail of these 90 clauses and six schedules is, of course, best left to discussion in Committee. I want to speak about a few of the broad themes of what the Bill seeks to do. I share the anxieties about the rather radical changes and the introduction of regional functions, with the regional spatial strategy and the regional planning bodies. I share the criticism that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made. The Bill puts the cart before the horse. It should not apply unless and until regional assemblies have been set up and are directly elected. In that sense, there is a democratic deficit in the Bill.
	I also regret the severe curtailment of the present powers of county councils. Even the powers that will remain underline that there will be yet another layer of bureaucracy in the town and country planning system. I read the Bill in a way similar to that of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). It will hugely increase the powers given to the Secretary of State and lead to their centralisation.
	The hon. Gentleman understands the current position in London. The Mayor has been given certain powers to call in particular applications. I will not go into detail, but they are not necessarily the largest applications. However, the Mayor has been given considerable powers. Once an application is submitted to the local planning authority—in London, it will be one of the London boroughs—it has to be referred to the Mayor, who has the power to direct the local planning authority to turn the application down. If he does that and the application is turned down, the applicant can quite properly appeal to the Secretary of State. If the applicant does not appeal, or the Mayor does not intervene on what he considers to be a good application, the Secretary of State can still call in that application. Precisely that has happened in my constituency. I ask the Government to reconsider. The powers for the regions should not be implemented unless and until directly elected regional assemblies—irrespective of our view of them—are set up.
	I welcome the fact that the Government have dropped the idea mentioned in the Green Paper that Parliament might decide on major planning cases and infrastructure projects. A local public inquiry is essential. The problem occurs when that process takes as long as it did for Sizewell B and Heathrow terminal 5. That was the Government's fault and not that of the system.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). Clause 43 deals with major infrastructure projects. When major infrastructure projects are of national or regional importance, the Secretary of State will be able to call them in and he must appoint an inspector to consider the application. New subsection 76A(6) under clause 43(6) adds:
	XThe Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to the procedure to be applied in considering an application under this section".
	I want the Bill to stipulate that there should be a local public inquiry in such situations. I find it inconceivable that there might not be and I hope that the Government take that on board.
	Local development frameworks, by which I mean local development schemes and documents, will replace the local plan system, which includes structure plans, unitary development plans and local plans. I agree that there will be confusion and complication. Although I fully accept that the Government want to streamline the process, the proposal will have the opposite effect. Of course I welcome clause 22, which allows modifications to be made to draft unitary development plans and other plans without having to repeat consultations and reopen inquiries.
	I am worried about the business planning zones and must caution the Government on them. Simplified planning zones already exist and in the old days, we had enterprise zones. We do not need the new scheme. Instead, we should use the existing simplified planning zone technique. It might be right not to require an outline planning permission if a development is proposed in an area where the land use is in conformity with the proposal. That could apply to many other areas. However, we need to continue the general principle of requiring outline planning applications because they give certainty and assurance to the planning process.
	I read the comments in the White Paper on speeding up decisions. It proposes that 65 per cent. of minor commercial and industrial applications, and 80 per cent. of other minor applications, should be determined within eight weeks, but why not 100 per cent.? I do not think that 65 and 80 per cent. are appropriate figures. One way to speed up the planning process for minor, not major, applications is to deem them granted if a determination is not made in eight weeks.
	On the rights of third parties, I hold what must be defined as the publicly unpopular view. Third parties have rights when the Secretary of State calls in an application for a public local inquiry and they can give evidence before the decision is made. I recognise that, at the other end of the scale, local planning authorities consult on other applications, although whether they do that adequately is a matter of subjective judgment. I fear that if the rights of third parties are expanded, the whole system will grind to a halt.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am listening carefully. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the Republic of Ireland, a gateway gets rid of the chaff to leave only the wheat? Genuine complaints go forward and there is no delay. If it is possible that a bad neighbour will impinge on an individual, it is right for that individual to have redress.

Sydney Chapman: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman nicely anticipates what I am about to say. For certain applications and to a limited extent, a case can be made to enhance the rights of third parties, but if the gateway is too wide, the whole system will grind to a halt.

Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position on the eight-week rule? He suggested that it might accelerate the process if an applicant is deemed to have consent after eight weeks. Is he advocating that as part of the planning process? If so, what consequences would that have for the rights of third parties?

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am not saying that that principle should apply throughout. All I am saying is that there should be a back-up for some relatively minor cases. For example, if a decision is not given within eight weeks, deemed consent might be considered appropriate. I hope, however, that on simpler and minor applications eight weeks will not be needed. The planning officer should ring up the applicant and say, XWe've got this. It is in conformity with land use. You've got the right density, which we approve of. We are just a bit worried about vehicular access to the site or housing estate and think that it should be pushed 20 ft along the road." Such problems could be dealt with over the telephone, modified on the plan submitted and stamped by the local planning officer. In those minor cases in which planning officers are allowed to make a decision, it could be given within a week. We want to encourage that approach.
	On section 106 agreements—I suppose the section number will have to change if the Bill is accepted—I welcome what the Minister said about the need for transparency. Frankly, many section 106 agreements are uncertain. They consume time and are anything but transparent. Indeed—I choose my words carefully—some of them could be seen to border on perceived corruption because the impression is given that people can get what they want provided that they give a certain amount of money. That unsatisfactory arrangement should be changed.
	I welcome the power not to accept repeat applications and twin-track applications. People can use and abuse the system. They go through the process. As soon as they are turned down, they appeal and put in another minor variant. I would welcome the time for appealing against refusals being cut from six to three months. I think that that is proposed, although I am not sure whether it is in the Bill. I very much welcome the ability of the local planning authority to expand permitted development rights.
	We have moved a long way on compulsory purchase and I have a suggestion that may help us move a bit further. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which was great in many respects, had one fault: it was deeply unfair to people whose land was confiscated in compulsory purchase orders. I say confiscated because they did not get anything like the full market value of their land. All they received was an imagined piece of a #400 million pot. Over the years, we have gradually moved to the market value, although many people do not think that the amount set by district valuers is enough. There is a case not for 100 per cent. compensation, but for 110 per cent. compensation provided the owner agrees within a specific period. That would provide an incentive, and it would be possible to get the land and to carry out the development. That would be especially useful when we need to widen roads or construct new ones.

Alan Whitehead: That sounds remarkably like giving someone money for doing what one wants. I thought that the hon. Gentleman rejected that principle.

Sydney Chapman: If we give 110 per cent., we are not giving people more than they deserve. It is not a case simply of buying the land, but of accepting that they have to move, which causes expenses. I accept that the Bill deals with loss of payments, but still think that, for the Government and the taxpayer, my proposal is good value for money, as the land would be obtained earlier—the longer it takes to get the land, the more it costs to carry out the development.

Peter Bradley: That is an interesting idea, but will it not have the opposite effect to that desired by the hon. Gentleman? Compulsory purchase comes into play only when the private or public promoter of a scheme has failed to negotiate the acquisition of land with the owner. He is providing the landowner with an incentive not to deal with the applicant but to hold on to the promise of getting 110 per cent. of the value that could be obtained much earlier and more constructively through negotiation.

Sydney Chapman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am not proposing that such a scheme be implemented in every case. I do not have time to develop this argument, but there are cases in which putting in an early, favourable offer with a time limit will help people to achieve what they want. The present method provides every incentive to delay and hang on.
	I doubt whether the Bill, as drafted, will speed up planning. It is possible, but not probable. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State will be given many more and greater powers. I am concerned about county councils' loss of statutory powers, and believe that local development frameworks are unnecessarily complicated. Decision making could become more remote and local people would have less say if the Bill goes through unamended. To return to my central point, while the Bill is good in parts, its approach is wrong, and the Government should have sought to amend the principal measure—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I therefore feel obliged to support the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Alan Whitehead: I shall speak briefly about county planning functions and the Bill's proposals to change them.
	I was interested to hear Opposition Members mount a thorough defence of county councils. That has not always been the Conservatives' position. The previous Government, I recall, instructed the Banham commission to assume that county councils would be abolished in the early stages of its deliberations on local authority structure. Indeed, one hon. Member who is in the Chamber today was a commissioner and succeeded in abolishing Berkshire, of which he may be proud. Such a development is at odds with the thorough historical defence mounted by some hon. Members today.
	Counties' function in planning is mainly to produce structure plans which, unlike local plans, do not relate directly to communities—they are general devices that sketch out broad areas of use, defend areas like the strategic gap in Hampshire, show where population growth may occur, and so on. The Conservative defence of county councils, which, as I mentioned, is relatively new, is not based on that function but, bizarrely, on the idea that counties are bastions of communities. In the debate on the Loyal Address, the king of the Tories over the water, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), called them Xorganic communities". They are lots of things, but they are not organic communities. If we take a look at local authorities in the round, we could say that counties are providers of generic and strategic services. They do not have a specific community function, but plan and co-ordinate county land use, mineral extraction, waste disposal and so on. Some of those functions, as hon. Members have said, will be retained by counties in the Bill.
	District councils have a clear community function in the proper sense of the word. The Bill makes community input a requirement for local plans in the shape of the new local development frameworks, which must include a statement of community involvement, as set out in clause 17. The process of community involvement is pitched at the right level, as communities will be able to make more decisions that affect their daily lives through the local development framework than has hitherto been the case. They will have input in the planning of their streets, their neighbourhood and the local shopping centre. Moreover, that input will have to be demonstrated by the local authority before the local development plan is finalised.
	Contrary to claims by Opposition spokesmen, that is in line with recent pronouncements of the current Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), who made a speech about returning power to local government, quite improbably on the occasion of the Nicholas Ridley memorial lecture. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said, as a Minister in the Thatcher Government, Nicholas Ridley was probably more responsible for damaging and disabling local government, and its representative, community and, significantly, planning functions, than any other Minister in living memory. However, I will let that pass.
	The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green did not equivocate or attempt to pretend that counties were local communities or even organic communities. He said, among other things, that
	Xwe need more responsibility exercised at a local level . . . I don't just mean by that giving back more powers to local government . . . I mean enabling people to take power themselves . . . it's what I call community government".
	I would have thought that Opposition Members would be in favour of the provisions on local development frameworks, but apparently they are not—I guess that relates to their hang-up with counties and their defence. They do not want county functions that relate to communities passed to communities nor, on the other hand, do they want functions that relate to strategic planning and regional co-ordination passed to regions. They want to keep things just as they are.
	If we step back and look impartially at the logic of the counties' function as the unit of strategic planning, we must ask why we should plan strategically on that basis. The only answer, frankly, is that we plan like that because that is how it has always been. I do not mean that that is how it has been since counties were established as elected bodies in their current form at the end of the 19th century, or even since the modern planning system came into being. I really do mean that that is how it has always been. If we look at a historical atlas, a remarkable fact emerges—counties have always had roughly the boundaries that they now have. A time traveller departing the earth in 1390 and returning today would have no idea that he had landed back in the same country until his eyes lit upon a map of the English counties, after which he would be certain that he had.
	That may be good news for cultural integrity—counties are certainly a deep cultural implantation in the English psyche, as the polling during the local government review of the early 1990s demonstrated. However, I wonder whether a structure whose boundaries have withstood the black death, the depopulation of mediaeval centres of industry, the enclosures, the industrial revolution, the rise of urban ribbon development and the suburbs, has the best boundaries on which to base strategic planning considerations for the next 100 years. Planning strategically at regional level therefore makes sense, as it allows a structure plan to look at the deployment of land use overall; how uses cohabit with each other; how transportation systems work; and how urban, semi-urban and rural areas may be mutually defended to come into their own. Over time, Opposition Members' objection that regions are not democratically accountable—whereas counties, whatever their flawed planning function, are—is likely to be overcome as regions establish elected assemblies and as regional spatial strategies come under their purview.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the people of Southampton, let alone Hampshire, are likely to vote to join the regional assembly of the south-east? If he does not, is he happy that the regional spatial plan will be prepared by some unelected regional body that will dictate to his own unitary authority exactly what it must have in its local development document?

Alan Whitehead: I have said in the House and on previous occasions that, in my view, we are engaged in a process. We recently had a Bill before the House paving the way for people to take a decision on whether they wish, at this stage or later, to have a democratically elected regional assembly looking after the regional strategic interests that I described. My personal view is that the process whereby that transition will be completed will be much shorter than some hon. Members currently believe. The process will speed up, as has happened in other countries of Europe, as people come to see why an elected regional assembly is useful and advantageous to their region.
	My personal view, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that whether that will finally result in a body covering exactly the boundaries of the south-east region and having full regional accountability is a matter for further discussion, but the principle that democratically elected regional assemblies will come to England over a relatively short period can certainly be argued. [Interruption.] The answer is that we are engaged in a process, as I have just told the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Opposition Members ought to understand the difference between something that is static and something that is a process. Their failure to understand that may explain why they are in the position that they are in.
	It is imperative for regional planning to be sustainable, as hon. Members from all parties have said this evening. We in the House have rightly committed ourselves to targets for emission reductions to combat climate change, targets for biodiversity, indicators on the quality of life, the establishment of targets for the proportion of housing to be built on brownfield sites, and so on. All these are important targets and indicators, and their achievement or failure will depend to a great extent on our use of land.
	If we agree to a free-for-all on urban ribbon development, if we go back to the days of the aforesaid Nicholas Ridley and rubber-stamp out-of-town shopping developments, if we agree to massive house building on greenfield sites, or if we develop settlements that increase commuting time and car use, those indicators and targets will fall by the wayside. Strategic land use planning and planning for strategic economic development must be co-located with sustainability. In this respect, I am not sure that we have made a brilliant start.
	I read the first published economic development plans for each of the new regional development agencies some while ago, and also the regional policy guidance that then ran alongside them. Without exception, the stated ambition of each of the regions was at that point
	Xto drive the region to perform economically at 'above the national average'".
	We could suggest kindly that that sounds rather similar to statements made by premiership football managers at the beginning of each season that their ambition this year is Xa place in Europe"—an ambition which, for many of them, rapidly becomes obviously unachievable, although this season, remarkably, not in the case of Southampton football club.
	A series of RDAs aiming to perform economically at above the national average is bound to conflict with regional planning guidance and, if the Bill is agreed by the House, with regional spatial strategies, if the latter are to unfold in line with the imperatives of sustainability in land use planning. The fact that clause 38(2) states that the regional spatial strategy should be undertaken with a view to contributing to the achievement of sustainable development will not resolve the problem entirely. In the legislation setting up the RDAs, it was stated that one of the five primary purposes of each RDA was to
	Xcontribute to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom where it is relevant to its area to do so".
	To date, the potential conflict of outcome between what an RDA does, and what regional planning requires, remains unresolved.
	We need better to define the term Xsustainability" in the Bill. We need to make sure that that clause is substantially strengthened if a logical and progressive new system of planning, which I heartily endorse, is to become meaningful in terms of the needs of sustainable planning in England.

Elfyn Llwyd: An article about the Bill in the Financial Times on 25 November stated that 60 per cent. of local authority planners believed that the Bill would be a failure, and that it would
	Xfail to speed up applications as the Treasury wants, according to the PPS Group, the consultation specialists who conducted the survey of 129 planning officers across the country. Stephen Byfield, of PPS, said: 'The government has promoted the new bill as the way to streamline the planning system. Our research shows that the people who actually make the decisions—planning officers— believe the precise opposite will happen. The system"—
	[Interruption.] I am quoting, not necessarily expressing my own view. I shall develop the idea presently, if hon. Members will bear with me. The article continues:
	XThe system is in fact about to become still more cumbersome, time consuming and, therefore, expensive."
	Those were the views of 129 planning officers—not necessarily mine, as I said. I am starting with the blackest part of my remarks.
	It is my belief, since I have been in this place, that there is a certain ambivalence towards local government at Westminster. Over the past two decades, more than 120 Acts have been passed, gradually scraping away local government powers. There is a distrust of local democracy here, despite lip service being paid—we have heard it this evening, and we will hear more later this evening, I am sure. The bottom line is that this place does not want local government to become over-mighty. That is a bad thing.
	If we are serious about local democracy and empowerment, surely we should do more than merely pay lip service to that notion. The apparent readiness to find fault with local government is not confined to this place. Recently, Margaret Curran, the Minister for Social Justice in the Scottish Executive, put all the blame for planning shortcomings squarely on the shoulders of local government and no one else.
	In the Welsh context, clauses 56 and 59 deal with the necessity for local development plans. That is a good idea. We should have local development plans that are overseen, in this case by the National Assembly. One hopes, of course, that the National Assembly will not play the role of big brother, as Westminster has done with local government. Hitherto, that has not been the case, and the hope is that it will not happen. On the face of it, the proposal is acceptable, provided that it is not shorthand for the Assembly and, in England, the Department, usurping the planning functions of local government.
	After all, the thrust of the Bill is to speed up the planning system. There has already been a move to involve Whitehall in too many planning matters—for example, the larger wind power schemes need the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry, over the head of the National Assembly. With that caveat, it is right that there should be an input from the Department, and in the Welsh context from the Assembly.
	Ceredigion council in central Wales recently came up with the idea that it needed 6,500 new homes. The research basis for that figure is non-existent. It was arrived at on the whim of a group of independent councillors. There is, sadly, no proof of local need. No methodology has been applied. The idea is being driven by independents on the council, some of whom stand to gain considerably from it. The figure of 6,500 homes seems to have been plucked out of the air. The driving force behind it is questionable. The independent councillors are adamant about the issue, and I might add that they are strongly supported by the Liberal Democrat councillors. At stake is the potential for extreme dilution of the Welsh language and culture because of the building of houses for which there exists no proven local need. The result would be a further influx of people who can pay higher prices, ensuring that the housing market spirals even further out of the reach of local youngsters. That stark scenario is a current one and I welcome the fact that the National Assembly for Wales will have a pivotal role in preventing such abuse from recurring.
	I welcome the spatial plans as, in the Welsh context, the National Assembly for Wales will be doing the work. I think that the proposal is sensible and, in England, it is a step towards true regional economic planning. The same is equally, if not more blatantly so in Wales. Several hon. Members have pointed out that planning might be working slightly better in Wales than in England. I am very pleased to hear that. It proves that we can do some things right. Indeed, I hope that before long we will also legislate well in Wales, although that is a debate for another day—or perhaps I should say other days.
	What will be expected of planning authorities in their local development plans, which are dealt with in clause 56? I hope very much that the authorities will consider in their plans health impact assessments and the Welsh language impact. Those are bread-and-butter issues in Wales and I hope that they will be dealt with in due course by being included in the Bill. Furthermore, I hope that it will be made clear that the plans should have due regard to housing strategy and mineral development strategy, which should be linked. Indeed, the National Assembly has recently done some very good work in that regard.
	I continue to be dismayed by the fact that local authorities do not as a matter of course undertake audits to survey local housing needs, concentrating on affordable housing. That was a strong recommendation of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs back in 1995 or 1996, but unfortunately precious little has been done, despite the fact that the need for social and affordable housing is even greater now than it was at that time.
	The idea of limiting the duration of planning permissions from five to three years is good and I welcome it unreservedly, but I regret that the Government did not bite the bullet fully and provide a time limit within which the development has to be completed or referred back to the planning authority so an explanation can be given as to why an extension is being sought. Hon. Members will know that far too many developers use land as a resource and pension policy. In so doing, they skew natural and proper development in any area. Development can mean as little as a few pegs in the ground. In dealing with development, Sweet and Maxwell's XEncyclopaedia of Planning" refers to
	Xany work of construction in the course of erecting a building".
	It seems to me that simply marking out a plot is enough.
	If the House will bear with me, I should like to cite one example. Aberdyfi in the south of my constituency is a small and fascinating maritime village with a year-round population of approximately 400 to 500. In the 1960s, a developer decided to submit an application for 200 houses on Copper hill above the village. There was no local need for the houses at that time and there is no such need now, but the mere fact that those permissions have existed for more than 30 years without a single plot being built upon has created terrible problems for small-scale local developers who have an eye on building affordable and social housing and on the local need. The obvious problem is that whenever a developer applies for planning permission in the locality, it is deemed that housing numbers are sufficient, but the parcel of 200 houses up on the hill has yet to be developed. Of course, if it is ever developed, it will result in the ruination of the wonderful little village of Aberdyfi.
	The irksome aspect of that situation is that it has caused a planning blight in about a third of my constituency, as people cannot build a few houses to meet the local need because of a development that was allowed previously. I think that we should grasp that nettle. In saying that, I am sure that I speak for hon. Members and other people who have encountered the same problem. I believe that the situation that I have described is wrong and skews the planning system altogether. I do not think that land should be used a resource for investment for the future if that is to the detriment of those who need places to live in the foreseeable future.

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman is reading from my script and, I am sure, that of many other hon. Members. Is he aware that his local authority would have the power to extinguish the planning consent that existed on the site to which he referred for 40 years, but in exercising it, would have to pay compensation at market value for houses that had never been built in that time? Does that not underline the importance of ensuring that those on the Front Bench, whom I am sure are listening very closely to this exchange, consider the Bill and find some way of accommodating the view that he advanced, which I support?

Elfyn Llwyd: Yes, I was aware of that point. I am by no means a know-all, but I am aware of the issue, and I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why: in the Caernarfon constituency, the same thing happened in a little village called Morfa Bychan—Hansard is going to have a fun day today—outside Porthmadog, where the council opted to do just what he described. However, the process cost millions of pounds. As we well know, money is not in huge supply in local government. I appreciate the point that he makes and sincerely hope on behalf of not only my constituents, but all our constituents, that the matter is readdressed in Committee.
	I read with interest the references to community consultation, which are welcome as far as they go. How is it intended that that consultation will take place? In other words, what will be the proposed avenues for dialogue? I welcome the idea, but how will it work? Anybody can see that the community council will have a role, but there will be other aspects and I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten me about them.
	Another matter that has concerned people in Wales is second homes. Concern is felt not only in Wales, but in Cumbria, Cornwall, the Cotswolds and anywhere else that anybody would like to name within reasonable commuter distances of towns and so on. The problem with properties that are used as second homes is that they undermine the viability of villages. I can speak of a village called Rhyd in my constituency, where only one or two local families are left all year round and the village shop and post office have gone. [Interruption.] I shall, no doubt, assist Hansard in due course; I promise to do so. The point is that the local shop has been undermined and the post office and village pub, church, chapel and school have all gone. The infrastructure has completely disappeared.
	We need to consider how to tackle that problem, which affects many areas throughout the UK, but is of particular moment in Wales. Very often, the areas where it happens most are the economically inactive ones—rural areas where there are houses to be bought and some people can afford to buy them, while youngsters cannot necessarily do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) last year introduced the Housing (Wales) Bill in an attempt to deal with that problem among others, including homes in multiple occupation. One of the notions that struck us was a use classes order. We could consider introducing such an order and the question whether a property that is not occupied all year round should be deemed to be in a different use class from that of a full-time residential property. That might be one way forward.
	I went to see Ministers about that issue before the White Paper was published. No names, no pack drill, but one Minister in particular was fully on board that it should happen. He said that he would put the matter in train, but unfortunately when the paper hit the Cabinet table, or a table slightly above his, the matter was stamped on and mysteriously disappeared. We were left with the odd and soppy suggestion of doubling the council tax. That does not go far when one is dealing with economic inequity and when the people buying the properties have more money to spend than the locals.

Peter Bradley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Rural Housing Trust, an extremely respectable and authoritative organisation in this field, believes that the receipts from the doubling of council tax could meet the shortfall in the funding of affordable housing? That would make a significant contribution to addressing the needs and problems to which he referred.

Elfyn Llwyd: I have no doubt that the doubling of council tax will be beneficial, but it will not crack the problem. Perhaps I was wrong to call it a sop, because it is more than that. Clearly, however, it is not the absolute answer.
	Interestingly, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs said eight years ago that it would like a quota of, for example, 10 per cent. development allowed in any given community, and that that should be decided locally. If only 10 per cent. were allowed in a locality, that would, I hope, assist sustainable communities. However, that is a debate for another day. I am pleased to see that I have struck a chord with Labour Members. The subject can no doubt be revisited in Committee.
	I wish to make two quick points. It is important to have a third party right of appeal because of potential bad neighbour applications. There should be a gateway to sift out the wheat from the chaff, and genuine grievances should be heard. Indeed, I am beginning to think that this may have a human rights aspect. I commend to hon. Members the way in which the model works in Ireland. It is a good model that does not create delay, and it is worthy of examination.
	We have all got terribly worked up this evening about how good compulsory purchase will be. I wonder where the money will come from to effect compulsory purchase; my local authority can hardly pay for social services, let alone compulsory purchase. Of course there are resource implications, but in principle, the idea is good and should be welcomed.
	There are some good aspects to the Bill, but many things need correcting. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that the dead hand of Westminster and over-centralisation are in the background. I hope that the Bill will be improved in Committee.

Clive Betts: Had the Government proposed today a Bill that embodied the suggestions in their Green Paper, I would have been making a very different speech. I would have attacked the idea that we could have a planning system without plans and a local development framework that would at best have been described as woolly, with no opportunities for the public to engage in its formulation. I would have said that the infrastructure project proposals were unworkable, and that plans for tariffs or taxes were at best only half considered. However, the Government listened to the objections and concerns that the Select Committee and others raised, and made fundamental alterations. They should be given credit for that.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said earlier, we should be proud of the planning system in this country. When it was born in 1947, it was a radical measure. Its fundamental principle was that the legal right to develop should not rest with the owner of the property. Effectively, it transferred the power of development from the individual to the community. Labour Members should have great regard to that and always make sure that we comply with it when considering changes to the planning system.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Exclusion, who introduced the debate, spoke about a step change. In reality, the Government should be saying that they are taking a small number of steps, mainly in the right direction, along the lines recommended by the Select Committee.
	Some criticisms have been made of the local development framework. When I first read the legislation, with its framework, documents and plans, it appeared a little confusing and not quite thought through. The proposals for Wales are slightly simpler and easier to understand. In response to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), I can say that the other day I spoke to the chief planner in Sheffield, Les Sturch, who was quite content that the proposals were workable and could deliver in time the ideas, procedures and throughput that the Government seek.
	I particularly welcome the fact that we are to have public inquiries and community consultation and involvement in the local development framework. As I told my hon. Friend the Minister earlier, the requirement to have maps is important because it provides a degree of certainty and understanding to the community about what is intended in the area. Most of the development in Sheffield in the past 10 years has taken place in my constituency. People come to my surgeries asking me to stop development on fields next to their homes. I tell them that something called the unitary development plan for the whole city shows the acceptable development on any piece of land. They complain that they did not know about that, and I answer that the whole city was consulted at some point. They argue that they did not live in their house at that time, and I say that, had they gone to the local library or town hall before buying their house, they could have seen a copy of the plan and the likely development on the land.
	People then begin to understand that there is a degree of fairness. They may not like the fact that houses will be built, but they at least understand that the system is fair. At that point, it is convenient for the local Member of Parliament to say that he can do nothing about the matter, but that consultation took place in the past. The measure gives certainty to the community because people can know what is likely to be built on land near their home and developers can know whether planning permission is likely to be accepted in principle.
	Clearly, any system can be reformed. I welcome the changes to stop serial repeat applications and to reduce the life of planning permission from five years to three. If I heard the Minister correctly earlier—this is an important point of clarification—she said that in future planning permission would not automatically be granted again once the expiry date had passed. That is important because, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, many permissions hang round for years and years, and they cause a perverse form of planning blight. If people know that once the planning permission has expired, it will not automatically be renewed, the system will become more certain, and I would certainly welcome that.
	I wish to pick up an important issue that was referred to earlier: enforcement. It is not in the Bill, but if local authority decisions are to be carried through, enforcement is necessary. Developers will always try to get a bit more out of the scheme than they are entitled to.
	The Mosborough village action group is an active body in my constituency whose members take a great interest in planning matters. They said that they knew that planning officers would always fundamentally be engaged in considering new applications and had no time to look for breaches in developers' conditions. However, as interested members of the community, the group could do that.
	In neighbourhood watch, interested members of the community help their local police officers and are recognised for the role that they fulfil. Why could not we develop planning watch, so that interested members of the community could be formally recognised, have a direct link to planning officers, receive some formal training and thus play an important role in enhancing enforcement? That would help to ensure that developers did not get away with breaching conditions. It is an interesting idea. I accept that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may not be able to respond officially to it tonight, but perhaps he could consider it. Involving the community positively and engaging it with the planning process could have great benefits.

Richard Younger-Ross: A simpler method might be to ask the building control officers to do the final check on whether a building had been constructed according to the requirements of the planning application. Building control officers are there at the end of the process.

Clive Betts: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would like to respond to that. It is right to involve more people in the enforcement process. People who are involved in the community, interested in such matters and who often walk around on site could be engaged slightly more formally. My idea has merit.
	I want to deal with two criticisms of the current system that have been exposed to some extent. First, it is alleged to be slow. Secondly, it is alleged to be anti-business and anti-competition. The system is sometimes slow, but evidence to the Housing, Planning and Local Government Committee showed that resources and lack of staff have been a major problem. I am delighted by the Government's commitment to the extra #350 million. It is right not to ring-fence the money; it should be up to local authorities to determine their priorities. However, they should be held to account for the way in which they deal with planning applications.
	It is often said that urban authorities' unitary development plans are adopted when they are due for revision. Clearly that is nonsense, but the responsibility ultimately lies with Ministers. If we set up a system—unitary development plans now or local development frameworks in future—that requires local authorities to act, Ministers must set out time scales and spell out clearly the consequences of not complying with them. There are currently no sanctions against a local authority that does not want to adopt a set of local plans. That must be examined if we are serious about the matter.

Paul Truswell: My hon. Friend is right to stress the importance of placing the responsibility on local authorities, but should not the Government bear some responsibility? Many delays in finalising unitary development plans fall between holding the public inquiries and inspectors furnishing local authorities with their reports.

Clive Betts: That is a fair point. If there is a requirement on local authorities, perhaps the Government should also set themselves a clear timetable so that they can be judged against it.
	Do we always want speedy decisions? We certainly want the right decisions. Speeding up the process can sometimes lead to decisions that are not in the best interests of the whole community. Sometimes the problem lies with the quality of the applications, which cannot be determined because the developer gives insufficient or incorrect details. The responsibility does not always lie with the planners. We must accept that although better public consultation will slow down the process, it may mean that the decision is ultimately better.
	I welcome the Government's commitment to community involvement by providing for each local authority to devise a statement of their method of operating the policy. I hope that we have seen the last of the notice on the lamp post as the only method of telling or consulting the public about a planning application. However, speed for its own sake can be wrong. An element of caution is therefore desirable.
	Let us consider the second allegation that the planning system is anti-business. We heard much rhetoric, but it was accompanied by little evidence. I am not happy about the simplified planning zones. I do not know what they are supposed to achieve. I hope that one or two will be dotted around the country, shown to be ineffective, and thus the idea, like that of enterprise zones, will go away, enabling local authorities to get on with the proper planning job that they are supposed to do. Sheffield asks Ministers for many things, but please do not give us a simplified planning zone; send it somewhere else if it must exist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman know that simplified planning zones already exist under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, and that since that time, only 20 have been designated? Given the enhanced threshold of an environmental impact assessment that the Bill requires, is it likely that many more will be designated?

Clive Betts: Either an explosion of uncontrolled development, which would be wrong, could happen, or nothing much will occur because there are few benefits. I hope that the latter is the case, and that the zones are simply someone's idea of a sop to appease the Confederation of British Industry, which is wrong about such issues and cannot substantiate its comments with evidence.
	The planning process gives certainty not only to communities but to business. Someone who invests in a high-quality business park or office development does not want a scrap yard next door. The Select Committee visited Sheffield and saw the regeneration of the city centre. Alison Nimmo, who heads Sheffield 1, said that the reason for retailers' interest in developing the town centre was that they knew that the local authority, backed by the Government, would use its planning powers to stop out-of-town shopping developments. It is as simple as that. Such certainty is important to business as well.
	The only bit of evidence that I could see was from the Competition Commission, which managed to hold an inquiry and conclude that the lack of competition among British food retailers was due to the restrictions on their developing out-of-town shopping centres, which were put in place through PPG6. I find that bizarre, because I did not notice a great deal of competition springing up when we had a free-for-all on out-of-town shopping developments or new firms moving in to ask for developments to be created.
	The Competition Commission has spoken about trying to create more competition by encouraging more out-of-town shopping developments, but if that were to work it would set up competition only for those with cars to get them there. There would be no competition, and no shops in many cases, for the poor in our deprived communities.
	I refer to what has just happened in Darnall, which is one of the poorest parts of my constituency. Incorrectly and in contradiction of PPG6 in my view, the neighbouring authority, Rotherham, renewed a planning application for an out-of-town food superstore, which was taken up by Morrisons. Surprise, surprise, 12 months after the decision was agreed, Morrisons decided to close its Darnall store, which effectively removed the heart from the shopping centre.
	Worse still, I understand that Morrisons is refusing to sell its store to another interested retailer that wants to buy it up. It is therefore depriving my constituents, many of whom are elderly, on low incomes and without a car, of a supermarket in which to do their food shopping. In view of such proposals, I am much more content with a planning system that looks after community interests than one that mistakenly tries to develop such competition. The certainty given to British business by the planning system is worthwhile indeed in terms of competition and something that we should protect.
	There are many good things and many things that I agree with in the Bill. I am happy to support it in total, although there are issues that we must consider in more detail, as they need to be subjected to further scrutiny. In general, I give the Bill my strong support.

Paul Goodman: I want to develop a theme that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who is not in his place. He referred to the role of county councils, although the House will perhaps not be surprised if I do not follow exactly the same line of argument.
	We might all agree that a key question for decision making in a democracy is the level at which decisions should be taken, so I want to address planning in general and the Bill in particular in the light of that question, although I have no doubt as to the answer that most of my constituents in Wycombe would give: ideally, decisions should be taken locally and as close to local communities as possible. They should be taken wherever possible by institutions with a claim on the loyalties and affections of those governed by them, which, in short, have legitimacy.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the counties have a deep cultural resonance in the English psyche. He is right about that, which is why my hon. Friends and I think that he is wrong in the rest of his argument. The background against which the Bill is set is not one where decisions are always, or even usually, made locally. Indeed, the trend in Britain since the war, under Governments of both parties, has been for more and more decisions to be made in Westminster and Whitehall—a process that has accelerated under this Government. That, of course, applies to planning as well as to many other examples.
	Local representatives in the High Wycombe and Marlow area from many political parties, not just my own, have told me that they believe that there is now no effective local control over important elements of the planning system, especially in relation to house building. They feel that Westminster and Whitehall are creating a damaging spiral in the south-east whereby development is approved from the centre, thus encouraging a further movement of people to the south-east from other regions, thus creating further housing demand, thus bringing about in turn more development approved in the south-east from the centre. So, a vital question for them and for my constituents is the degree to which the Bill will make planning more local and accountable.
	There are good aspects to the Bill. Few Bills, perhaps, are entirely bad. I welcome, for example, the Government's intention to eliminate repeat applications and twin-tracking—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member- for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman). However, the main argument of Opposition Members is that the thrust of the Bill is to make planning less local, less accountable and less democratic.
	One of the principal intentions of the Bill is to dynamite the present planning architecture and replace it with a new structure, at the apex of which will be the new regional assemblies. That may be adequate where there is real demand for a regional assembly, such as in the north-east—although there is scope for argument about that—but what about areas such as the south-east, where even Ministers concede there is little demand for a regional assembly? The Bill proposes to take power away from directly elected representatives and to give it to people who are not directly accountable to voters, if at all.
	Buckinghamshire county council argues that, if the Bill as presently drafted becomes an Act, county councils will have no statutory powers relating to strategic or sub-regional planning; regional planning bodies will decide whether it is desirable for county councils to have a function at regional or sub-regional level, which means that the regional planning bodies may decide in a particular instance that it is not desirable; and district councils may agree to the involvement of county councils in the production of local development documents through the establishment of a joint committee. Therefore, district councils may not agree in a particular instance that county councils should be involved in the production of local development documents.
	Buckinghamshire county council also argues that county councils need to have planning powers to fulfil their duty to secure the social, economic and environmental well-being of their areas. County councils throughout England are putting similar arguments. My hon. Friends and I support them. That is the democratic deficit that has been alluded to by many speakers in the debate—not just Conservative Members, but Liberal Democrats. Without a statutory planning duty in the Bill, county councils will be unable to maintain a strategic planning function and a skills base, which will be to the detriment of the regional spatial strategy and local development documents. If the remit of county council planning experts is merely to advise other bodies, to assist them and to provide them with technical expertise, county councils are unlikely, given the pressure on them from education and social services, to retain that expertise unless they have a statutory role in the planning system.
	The Minister will be aware that Buckinghamshire county council's view is supported by the Local Government Association, the Civic Trust, the Planning Officers Society, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to which reference was made earlier. Even the Minister would have to concede that that is a formidable list.
	Under the Bill, county councils in areas such as the south-east are to be squeezed between elected district councils and groups that are not directly accountable to voters at regional level—or quangos, to use the word used by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). District councils are also unhappy about the tensions that will result. Wycombe district council has said:
	XWithout a fully resourced sub-regional component, the gap between the local district level and the regional level is too remote . . . The Bill should therefore more clearly set out the extent to which county councils must be engaged in spatial planning at the regional and especially the sub-regional level."
	The Government's intention was to simplify planning. However, the Bill may make planning more complex by setting no fewer than four levels of government against each other—regional government, the new sub-regional level, county councils and district councils. Two of those tiers of government seem to have little or no legitimacy in the eyes of local voters, and it has not escaped the House's notice that the Bill increases the already considerable powers available to the Secretary of State.
	Despite all this, I want to end on a positive note by quoting with approval a Minister. At the recent Local Government Association conference, Lord Rooker said:
	XThe Bill is not our last word. We will listen to what's said and will be prepared to seek a consensus."
	On the basis of tonight's debate and the points made by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, the Minister must surely be aware that there is no consensus whatever for dynamiting the current planning architecture in which elected county councillors play a crucial part, and replacing it with a system presided over in large tracts of the country—and certainly in the south-east—by those who are less accountable to local voters, if they are accountable at all, and who therefore have less, or no, democratic legitimacy. If Ministers are truly seeking consensus during the Bill's passage, they will achieve it only by reconfirming the statutory planning duties of county councils, rather than by seeking to strip them away. Until and unless they do, I and other Opposition Members will continue to oppose the Bill.

David Drew: Given the number of Members who wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks brief. I do not necessarily share the views of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) about counties, but during consideration of the Bill some clarification of the new relationships will be necessary.
	I start from the premise that the current planning system is unfair, inaccessible and unpredictable. I do not mind the idea of dynamiting the system, because people are genuinely distressed by it and feel that it needs radical change. The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was undoubtedly radical and pushed things forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made it clear that it put in place the community basis of individual demand. It was right to do so at that time, and we need to reinforce that principle. The regional level makes increasing sense to people, and I see no reason why we should not enforce that through the planning system.
	I want to devote my remarks to the rural dimension. As chairman of the Labour rural group of MPs—I followed my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley)—I know that we must recognise the importance of the rural dimension. We must face up to the fact that there is a crisis in housing provision in rural areas. We must do something about it and learn how to move matters forward quickly. With that in mind, the rural group held a recent seminar at which virtually all the main players in the delivery of rural housing were present, including the Countryside Alliance. Those present were able to display the degree of consensus that exists. They emphasised the importance of planning to the system; along with transport, planning is undoubtedly the major issue in terms of changing rural life for the better. The belief was expressed that parish and town councils have an important part to play, that there is a need to streamline the decision-making process, that we must get more low-cost housing into our villages and market towns, and that we need to recognise the interrelationship of urban and rural areas. However, the difference is that planning in rural areas requires greater sensitivity and a recognition of the scale of the changes. It was also noted that there is much good practice, but that, unfortunately, a lot of it is not being disseminated throughout the system, so something must be done to improve matters. It is in those terms that I shall consider this Bill: does it move forward the rural debate, and, if so, how will that be achieved?
	Urban and rural areas have much in common. Pleasingly, we have a rural agenda, but we need to consider how to bring about brownfield development and the delivery of sequential tests in rural Britain, just as they must be delivered in urban Britain. In the time remaining, I shall briefly consider the Bill's provisions and how they can be delivered in the rural domain.
	I start with the debate about counties and regions. I may not come to bury counties, but I certainly do not come to revive them. There is much to be said for unitary government, which makes sense if we are to form regional assemblies in due course. We already have the economic drive of the RDAs, and that must be enforced through the planning system. We should be honest and open and say that it makes a lot of sense to assimilate policies on minerals and waste to the regional dimension.

Peter Bradley: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things that attracted people to vote for the establishment of unitary authorities, such as the Telford and Wrekin authority in my constituency, was the fact that such authorities would be closer to the community and more responsive in their decision-making processes? By the same token, people felt that shire hall was far too remote from their interests.

David Drew: That is the point. We are trying to keep in place archaic institutions that bear little resemblance to what people want in local democracy. Structure plans are a thing of the past. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, and he will know that we in Gloucestershire have not had much success with structure plans. The last one had to be rewritten by the inspector because what it proposed was so bad. That is our experience locally, and other areas may have gone through something similar.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he think that the people of Stroud will consider the planning process more or less democratic, given that under the Bill a regional body in Bristol, Taunton or Exeter will determine the regional spatial strategy? That will inform what has to be put into the local development framework plan prepared by his local authority.

David Drew: I was going to say that I believe that we must make the process more democratic. I am interested not in a top-down process, but in a bottom-up one. There will be evolution, but it must allow public participation. As I shall make clear, the emphasis should be placed on parish and town councils.

Paul Truswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important part of the democratic deficit is not so much the removal of county council involvement but the fact that communities and individuals do not have the right to challenge strategic plans at that level?

David Drew: If my hon. Friend is referring to third party rights of appeal, I am at one with him. A weakness of the Bill is that the Government have not grasped the nettle and taken the opportunity to introduce a proper framework for third party appeals.
	Town councils and, in rural areas, parish councils have a crucial role to play in public participation. Giving them greater capacity will mean that they will have the chance to plan how they want their communities to develop. Responsibility will follow if we are able to give them the necessary powers, and I look forward to doing that with this Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) spoke about third party rights of appeal. I should like such rights to be enshrined in the Bill. In that respect, I disagree with the Government. There would have to be clear checks and balances on the operation of such appeals, but the Labour party embraced the proposal for years in opposition. We supported its inherent fairness and justice, and it is sad that certain people have been able to persuade a Labour Government not to adopt. We should resist that persuasion and do the decent thing. We should see how the planning system could be made fairer by allowing people who feel that they have been treated unfairly by it a right to put across their point of view.
	I very much welcome the fact that repeat applications will not be allowed, and the reduction, from five years to three, in the period for which a planning permission remains valid. I am concerned about how the permitted development rights will operate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say something about that. If we are to give local authorities more powers according to those rights, I want to know exactly how they will operate. Let me also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe that I am not sure how the business planning zones will work. I am not sure that they are not a gimmick rather than a measure that could make a real difference.
	As important as the Bill will be the tremendous funding boost. We all accept that the main problem is a failure to change the mindset of those involved in the planning process owing to underfunding, which may lead to a lack of planning officers or, indeed, stymie people dealing with applications. I hope that using the new funds appropriately will lead to what my hon. Friend described as a step change.
	I am still not sure what will emerge from the changes in the section 106 agreements, and I think that in Committee we must tease out ways of improving the situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) that there are ways in which it could be seen as a form of corruption. We should also think carefully about poverty and social exclusion. I hope that in Committee we can make clear how the less privileged can have better access to the planning process.

Andrew Lansley: Let me begin with an apology. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and I could not hear the opening speeches because we were in the Standing Committee considering the Communications Bill. Not least for that reason, I shall be brief. I shall also try to confine myself to personal observations arising from my involvement in planning, as they are unlikely to duplicate what has already been said and are relevant to one of the main issues.
	There is clearly a theoretical argument to be had about the desirability of regional spatial strategies supplanting the county structure plan as a mechanism for securing strategic planning, but in this context I would prefer not to deal with the theory. We can discuss elsewhere the likelihood or otherwise of the establishment of regional assemblies. I think their establishment extremely unlikely in the east of England, certainly, and I therefore believe that the current democratic deficit and lack of accountability in regional planning is likely to persist for a long time. What is more relevant to this Bill, however—as opposed to the Regional Assemblies (Preparation) Bill—is the question of whether regional spatial strategies will deliver, in practice, speedier and more effective plans. I do not think that they will.
	During the last few years, I have participated in public examination of RPG6 relating to East Anglia. Last month, I spent three days taking part in a public examination of the Cambridgeshire structure plan, which is pursuant to RPG6. One of the perversities of the present situation is demonstrated by what was happening during the four weeks in which I—along with many others—considered the plan. The East of England local government conference, which for our present purposes is the planning body, is moving towards the establishment of RPG14, which it thinks may well be one of the first regional spatial strategies produced under the new legislation. During our consideration, the conference produced a document purporting to be a pre-consultation draft document relating to that regional spatial strategy for the east of England—which was quite separate from the preceding RPG6, although intended to carry forward some of its principles. On the face of it, the consultation draft for the regional spatial strategy was not seeking to cut across the county structure plan, which will set the framework for Cambridgeshire for the next 14 years. It said that the sub-regional strategy for the Cambridge sub-region would be as reflected in RPG6 and as determined in the county structure plan. Even the regional spatial strategy is more or less saying that the county structure plan is the right place for that to happen. Of course, that plan will not be there in the future.
	At the same moment, the regional spatial strategy was contemplating scenarios that cut across all that. For example, the local government conference had gone to consultants based in Birmingham—it must have been somewhere outside the region as they did not seem to know much about Cambridgeshire—in order to produce scenarios on how large numbers of new houses could be accommodated in the east of England. One of those scenarios was for a large new settlement on the scale of Milton Keynes. One of the areas of search identified for that was south of Cambridge and in my constituency. People in my constituency, including me, might well conclude that the regional spatial strategy did not understand the nature of what was already happening in terms of a sub-regional strategy for the Cambridge area. At the same time, South Cambridgeshire, which is the district authority responsible for that area, did not even have a representative on the regional planning conference. The distance between those who are affected by this major issue and the body concerned is so enormous as to make it quite unreasonable.
	One of the principal arguments behind the proposal for a large new city is the proposition that there should be east-west rail links and that Norwich, Cambridge, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Oxford should all be linked. Fine, let them all be linked, but the Strategic Rail Authority is pretty clear that the line will not travel along that route and will not go anywhere near the area of search. The pieces of the jigsaw are not being linked together. The regional planning body is transparently so divorced from understanding the nature of how these issues interact in the Cambridge sub-region that it is difficult to see how the regional spatial strategy will ever be anything more than a process by which all the strategies—the waste strategy, the transport strategy, the cultural strategy and the economic strategy—are reflected in the document, with the balances, in practice, being struck somewhere else.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said that this is a dynamic process and that we have to think about how it all works. I agree that it is a dynamic process. Conservative Members are not simply saying that county structure plans are the be-all and end-all because, clearly, there will be sub-regional strategies, such as the one around Cambridge, that ought to include contributions from other local authorities such as Essex, Hertfordshire and even Bedfordshire and Suffolk. All those authorities can be involved. The idea that it will be done by the regional spatial strategy is utterly misleading. It is clear that, in practice, it would be better to work on a reform that is geared to the development of county structure plans in a manner that is able to take account of cross-border issues and to link related strategies. That would be better than trying to work through the regional spatial strategy, the effect of which would be to create a bureaucratic process that would be divorced from reality, subsequent to which sub-regional documents would have to be drawn up that, perhaps on different boundaries, would be akin to county structure plans in the manner in which they tried to integrate the various strategies.

Peter Bradley: I welcome this long overdue reform of the planning system. Before entering the House, I spent years as an adviser to some major developers, advising on their community relations and promoting some significant schemes up and down the country. My job was to help them to ensure that communities were consulted and that, as far as possible, their support for major schemes was secured. I know that the most important issue for the developer and the community alike was certainty. Major development drives economic and, to some extent, social progress. However, many schemes that could have made a significant contribution to the local, regional and national economy stalled because, during the prolonged decision-making process, the market changed, the scheme was no longer viable and the developer had to go back to the drawing board.
	I welcome any move away from the adversarial approach to planning and development towards a more co-operative system in which the developer, the planning authority, elected members and local communities can together secure certainty. Communities that support a scheme need to know whether it will generate jobs from which they can benefit. If they oppose a scheme, they will want to know whether it will have negative impacts—for example, on the value of their homes.
	Communities want certainty about how and when decisions will be made and about their right to information—a point made earlier in the debate. They want the right to participate in and inform the decision-making process. I welcome changes that will improve consultation and participation and, in so doing, remove the blight suffered by communities where development is not welcome and accelerate the benefits where it is.
	We need to go beyond simply changing the system: we also need to change the culture. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—the name of whose constituency set me the double challenge, first of remembering it and, secondly, of being able to pronounce it; I think that I made a reasonable fist of it—mentioned the survey undertaken by the PPS Group that found that planning officers opposed change and thought that the Bill was unnecessary and unwieldy. I wager that whenever members of any profession are consulted about any change to their working practices they come to the same conclusions. Talented, highly skilled and motivated as many planning officers are, and however committed they are to their communities, they need to change their culture. We need to help them to do that. Planners need to get out more. They need to lift their eyes to a further horizon—whatever that means. When I wrote it in my notes I thought that it was a striking phrase.
	Planners should raise their game. Planning should be entrepreneurial as well as regulatory. Too often, we encounter planning as development control that has forgotten that it can play a creative role in our communities. Planners should not merely prevent or control development but look out for opportunities to improve housing provision, generate employment and enhance local services. They should improve the environment as well as conserving it.
	Planning is a potent engine for social change. When I was a member—

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Peter Bradley: I can give way only briefly as I am anxious that other Members have the chance to speak.

David Drew: There is no better example of the points that my hon. Friend was making than when planners are faced with the redundant barn syndrome. They always want to turn down proposals to develop such buildings instead of seeing them as enabling employment or proper housing in rural areas. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Peter Bradley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to deal with that point in a moment.
	I was about to give an example from my experience as a member of Westminster city council during the heady days of Shirley Porter's regime. The Conservatives on the council certainly understood the importance of planning. In promoting their scandalous and illegitimate homes-for-votes scam, they achieved more through the planning system than they ever did through manipulating housing provision and selling off council flats through the designated sales policy.
	Major developments such as Bishopsbridge in Paddington and Westminster hospital, just around the corner in the ward that I represented, did not provide even one unit of social housing, yet such projects could have met acknowledged need in our community. I do not cite those examples to make either a rhetorical or a political point, but there are huge opportunities, especially in commercial centres such as Westminster and the City of London. A force for something that was ultimately unlawful can also be a force for good. We need to return to the concept of planning as a creative engine of social change.
	Let me cite another example of my experience as a member of Westminster city council's planning committee. A plausible policy was adopted to resist the development of tall buildings around the royal parks. Most people would accept that that is a very sensible policy, but I think that it is a counsel of despair. We should tell architects that we value sensitive landscape as a precious resource but then challenge them to come up with excellent architecture that will overcome our objections.
	We should challenge planners, architects and developers to extend themselves, meet local needs, devise original schemes and design buildings whose architecture we can be proud of and which will be landmarks for years to come. We should not simply say to them, XI'm sorry mate, but don't even bother to put in a planning application for this site because it won't be accepted."
	I commend the emphasis in the Bill on the rights, interests, needs and participation of communities. I have concerns about rural development, not because I am against it—far from it. I favour development in and for rural communities. The Government have rightly supported parish councils, and #16 million has already been distributed by the Countryside Agency's vital villages programme to develop parish plans. The Government are committed to sustainability, but my plea is that the planning system must help more and hinder less. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made that point in his intervention.
	The biggest complaint that I get from those in the rural part of my constituency—particularly from farmers, as we are urging them to diversify within and beyond agriculture—is that when they go to the planning department with a proposal to develop a redundant farm building or change its use, the planning officer says, XI am sorry; our controls are very strict, so don't waste time and money on a planning application."
	Some businesses that started in farm buildings, have succeeded and are now ready to expand, creating jobs and investment to the benefit of the local community, have their plans stalled before they even get off the drawing board. That problem should not be underestimated. We have to encourage planners in rural settings to understand that, yes, the landscape must be protected, but not always at the expense of the people who live in it.
	I want to touch on an important flaw in the Government's policy on the provision of housing for rural communities. The sequential test is fine in principle, but, in practice, it drives young people from their villages into market towns or, worse still, into the nearest urban centre. It does not arrest that migration from which rural communities have suffered for decades; it drives people further away.
	Earlier today, hon. Members talked about the need for housing needs surveys, and I fully support that principle. Every district council should be required to undertake a housing needs survey, and those surveys may well be supported by the parish council and village community groups because their village needs affordable housing to sustain community life, despite the fact that it has to be built on green fields or in the green belt.
	When young people are driven away from their villages—some go through choice and some because they cannot find jobs, but many go because they cannot find affordable housing—the village shop is undermined because there are no customers, the school is undermined because there are no children to go to it and the pub begins a downward spiral towards closure. People are not there to use those facilities. If we provide homes and jobs where they are needed, we begin to reverse that process and, incidentally, we reduce the dependence on public and private transport.
	My plea is that we look at where housing is needed. Let us not drive people to the nearest market town just because that is where the railway station or the motorway connection is. That has a role to play, and we should stimulate economic development in market towns, but not at the expense of the village communities, where people need to live and often have a right to choose to live.
	I am very pleased about the reduction in the life of planning consents from five years to three, and about the bar on repeat applications. We should, however, consider the need to abbreviate the life of planning consents when work has begun on them. That problem is far more widespread than may be recognised, and we need to plug that loophole. We talked about certainty, and people need to know what, if anything, will happen on a site in their neighbourhood. That is an anomaly, and I hope that Ministers have heard the comments of hon. Members and will act to plug that loophole as the Bill progresses.

Mark Hoban: I apologise to both Front-Bench spokesmen for not being present for the opening speeches because of duties elsewhere in the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned.
	Planning is a major issue in my constituency. It has been a running theme in my postbag since I was elected, and it was one of the key themes in the general election in June last year. It is a major issue because of the way in which Fareham has grown over the last 20 to 30 years: what was once strawberry fields and market gardens is now densely populated housing, particularly in the west of the constituency where I live.
	When I talk to local people about their planning concerns, they do not focus on somebody's extension or putting dormer windows in roofs. Their concerns focus on the density and scale of housing development in an area that is already densely populated. Many local people were given heart by the words of the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) in introducing the Green Paper just over a year ago, when he said:
	XThis is a radical change in the way we look at planning. Instead of being led by plans we will be led by people. We want a planning system in which the values of the whole community are allowed to prosper and develop."
	He went on to say:
	XThis is a new community-focused approach. It underlines our commitment to giving people a real voice in deciding the future of where they live".
	Those are sentiments that many people in all communities share. People in my community, when asked whom they would prefer to take planning decisions, said that they would prefer county and borough councillors to take those decisions, not regional bodies, and certainly not the Secretary of State.
	It appears from the Bill that the voice of local communities will be strong. We have already heard about the requirement for a statement of community involvement. That sends out a powerful signal to people that they should participate in the planning process. In reality, however, I fear that their voice will not be heard fully. Because of the way in which the planning structure has been changed—with the abandonment of county structure plans and the insertion of regional structure plans—their voice will be diminished. In evidence to the Select Committee in relation to the structure of the plans that will be in place, the County Councils Network said:
	XThe system of Regional Planning Guidance—Structure Plan—Local Plan will be replaced by Regional Spatial Strategy—Sub-regional Plan—Local Development Framework—Action Plan."
	Many more layers of plans are being put in place and they will serve to reduce, not strengthen the voice of local people.
	The abolition of the county structure plan and the end of a statutory role for county councils in the development of plans is a great loss, as I do not believe that any regional body set up to give guidance on the spatial plans will in any way represent the needs of constituencies such as Fareham. Any regional body in the south-east, whether elected or unelected, will be dominated by the representatives of the large conurbations—places such as Portsmouth, Southampton or Brighton. The voices of people in constituencies such as Fareham will not be heard loudly enough in the regional bodies. However, those voices are heard very loudly in the county council, where Fareham has six councillors to represent local people. The councillors can express people's views and concerns about how planning has developed in Hampshire and how development should take place.
	Hampshire county council provides an ideal forum for the creation of its own sub-regional strategies. It met the representatives of local councils recently and identified two needs for sub-regional policies in Hampshire. One was in the south of Hampshire, where Fareham is, and the other was in the north, where the county felt that it could work well within the existing structures with Surrey and with unitary authorities in what was Berkshire. There is a framework for local people to feel involved and for sub-regional strategies centred on existing planning structures.

Andrew Love: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, which has focused on the needs of local people. However, does he recognise the regional and, in many cases, national dimension, especially in relation to housing? If we do not build houses, we will have house price inflation and rising homelessness. We have to find a balance that reduces homelessness and house price inflation, but allows people to live in sustainable communities.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that many people raise when talking about housing in the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) mentioned it. When we build more houses, all that seems to happen is that more people migrate from the north-east, where I came from, and the north-west to the south. That is not sustainable. Rather than sucking economic development and prosperity out of those regions and into the south-east, we should try to ensure that those regions prosper. By continuing to predict housing growth over the next 10 to 15 years, we will create a situation in which more people will come to the south-east and more houses will need to be built. Because the prosperity is in the south-east, more people will still want to move here.
	I have yet to be convinced that regional guidance, housing targets and housing development work. They do not take sufficiently into account the needs of local communities.If we place more emphasis on regional planning, the housing development that the regional planning bodies believe is needed will be pushed into the areas that are not well represented on them.
	Compulsory purchase is another aspect of the Bill, and I wish to raise an issue that relates to my constituency. I refer to the way in which land for compulsory purchase is valued. There is a ransom strip in my constituency that is holding up a major road that could improve the lives of many people in the area. That land is not currently scheduled for development, but its owners have said that, if it is subject to a compulsory purchase order, they will fight to make sure that the land value that they receive reflects not its current worth as agricultural land but what it might be worth if it is used for development. The Government need to introduce more certainty into how land values are calculated for compulsory purchase orders, so that they can prevent landowners from holding communities to ransom by extracting too high a price for their land even if it is not scheduled for development. I am disappointed that the Bill does not move the system any closer to clarifying how we should value that land.
	The right hon. Member for Tyneside, North said that we needed to give people a real voice in deciding the future of where they live. The proposals in the Bill will diminish the voices of local communities in deciding their future. It is right that we should oppose it.

Paul Truswell: I shall truncate my comments drastically, having been robbed of time by my colleagues, and try not to impinge too much on the time left for Front-Bench spokesmen.
	When I first read the Bill, I tried to put myself in the position of my constituents who are interested in and affected by planning matters. I asked myself a few simple questions. First, is the process in the Bill more intelligible than the present system? The answer is probably that it is just as impenetrable unless there is a determined effort to achieve the contrary. Secondly, does it give my constituents further rights to assert their interests? Again, probably not. Thirdly, does it improve their ability to challenge planning applications and permissions that they believe will damage their communities? The answer to that is a firm no.
	I regret the absence of even an attempt to provide a qualified third party right of appeal. However, it is interesting to hear the Conservative party's sudden conversion to that when it did not lift a finger to do anything about it in its 18 years in government. I welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). They seemed to be an unequivocal apology for the planning system that his Government inflicted on communities, like those that I serve in Leeds.
	Unless drastic changes are made to the planning process, I regret that it may continue to exist in its present form. The problem is that it militates against public involvement, as does the impenetrable jargon, which we could refer to as planning-speak. Perhaps planners and Ministers should be encouraged to take courses run by the Plain English Campaign or involve that excellent organisation when they draw up documents. I am sure that Chrissie Maher and her colleagues would receive that challenge with some relish and, I have to say, planners deserve it.
	My fear about the local development scheme is that it replaces the maze of the unitary development plan with a labyrinth of various documents. It will take a real Theseus, or his female equivalent, to find his way in or out of the labyrinth, with or without a ball of twine. Several references have been made to the simplicity of the Welsh model, and Ministers should take that on board.
	On the statements of community involvement, will the Secretary of State lay down minimum standards or will it be a moveable feast? Can Ministers be more specific about what they want the SCIs to include as a minimum? Part of the problem is that SCIs will be drawn up in conjunction with the rest of the documents in the local development scheme. Although it does not exactly put the cart before the horse, it does put the horse in the cart. If we are talking about generating true, real and dynamic community involvement, surely we need to set the ground rules at the outset rather than as part of the overall process. There is a lovely juxtaposition in subsections (3) and (4) of clause 18. They say:
	XIn preparing the other local development documents the authority must also comply with their statement of community involvement . . .
	But subsection (3) does not apply at any time before the authority have adopted their statement of community involvement."
	That demonstrates my point.
	It also appears that the SCIs do not have a clear status. That indeterminate status means that they will not have the same force as the development plan. Instead, they will be seen very much as guidance. Part of the problem with that is that guidance is much easier to circumvent than something that is laid down in the development plan.
	I have other concerns, which I shall list quickly. I agree with many of the comments on local development orders, statements of development principles and simplified planning zones. Each of those, in their own way, appears to militate against community involvement in, and understanding of, planning processes.
	I shall use the short time left to concentrate on the third party right of appeal. It is clearly unsustainable to argue that local authorities are always right when they grant planning permission, but sometimes wrong when they do not. In the past, Ministers have said that it is difficult to define applications where a right of appeal may operate. What about local authorities giving themselves planning permission? What about permission being granted for a clear departure from a structure plan? What about where an environmental impact assessment is required as part of the process? The need for a right of appeal in such cases is clear enough—I do not buy the argument that it is difficult to define exactly where a qualified right of appeal may exist.
	It is simply not enough to suggest that people have redress through a judicial review, as that is expensive and tests only the process, not a decision. I appreciate that much of what I am concentrating on in the few remaining moments is negative, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister accepts that that is born from the frustration of grappling with the planning system on behalf of my constituents for over 20 years and the disappointment that, on the face of it, the Bill does little to make that task easier. However, I still live in hope. We must ensure that the process is engaging and properly publicised. It is important to the public and their need to become involved is crucial. The planning process must have a welcome mat at the door, rather than the combination lock or guard dogs that are sometimes there. If, through regulation or guidance, Ministers can reinvigorate the planning process so that community involvement is a fact rather than something achieved in passing, they still stand a chance of bringing a smile to my face.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for the chance to participate in this important debate on whether the House agrees the Bill's Second Reading.
	This has been a good-tempered debate. Even if attendance in the House is rather thin at the moment, it is worth putting on the record the fact that this will be the last Tuesday on which we will have 10 o'clock vote. Let us hope that modernisation produces a better attendance in the Chamber, as that will be to everyone's advantage. I congratulate, in no particular order, my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on their excellent speeches and pertinent comments.
	Much has been said about the Bill, and it is worth looking at what outside bodies have said about it. For example, the Council for the Protection of Rural England said:
	XThis is an unacceptable and unworkable centralisation of strategic planning. The Government wants to take powers from elected county councils and unitary authorities for itself and for remote, unelected regional bodies."
	The Law Society believes
	Xthat this Bill is a missed opportunity to improve the efficiency of the land use planning system to deliver quicker decision making while preserving the rights and ability of individual members of the public to contribute to that process."
	The CBI says:
	XAs the bill stands we don't believe that these proposals will produce a system that better serves the needs of the economy and society."
	Even Friends of the Earth says:
	XThe planning system cannot survive an ill-considered reform package which fails to deal with the central issue of fairness and equity. The planning system must have simplicity of structure, and clarity of purpose reflected in comprehensive policy."

Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Certainly, in a second, because the hon. Gentleman gave way to me.
	It is a remarkable achievement that bodies as diverse as the CBI and Friends of the Earth can condemn the Bill. It is remarkable that the Government have been able to introduce it under those circumstances.

Andrew Bennett: With which of the criticisms that the hon. Gentleman cited does he agree?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with all of them, otherwise I would not have cited them. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution because, under his chairmanship, the Select Committee did the House a huge service in taking a huge amount of evidence. However, reading his speech, in parenthesis he appears to say that there is nothing wrong with the present planning system that could not be cured by a little amendment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe was right: why dismantle the entire present planning structure and architecture, and replace it with something that is unproven and which, as all those outside bodies said, at best will be much more lengthy, and at worst may not work? We must consider carefully what the Bill will bring about. There is no doubt that it will introduce more complexity, more delay, less democratic accountability and more centralised direction. I shall enlarge on all those themes in due course.
	A number of hon. Members said that the system is not at fault; it needs to be administered by proper professional officers. I declare my interest as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I know that planning officers, many of whom are in my profession, think that they are undervalued. They certainly think that they are underpaid, compared with the private sector. Until we value them and pay them properly, we will not get planning officers of calibre, whom we will certainly need under the new, more complex system introduced by the Bill.
	The Bill introduces the regional planning body and the regional spatial strategies. The Secretary of State will have huge powers over those new unelected regional bodies. He will have to nominate a regional body long before any elected regional assembly comes about, if that ever happens. The Bill centralises the planning system into the hands of the Secretary of State, and huge powers he has. The Local Government Association says of the regional planning body:
	XThe Secretary of State can decide if an examination in public into a draft RSS"—
	that is, regional spatial strategy—
	Xis required and appoint an inspector who will report their findings to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has additional powers to direct an RPB"—
	that is, regional planning body—
	Xto prepare a draft revision of the RSS. Where the RPB fails to act in accordance with such a direction, the Secretary of State may prepare a draft revision or revoke all or parts of an RSS. The Secretary of State has powers to remove recognition from the RPBs and prepare his own RSS for a region."
	If that is not a more complicated and more centralising system, I do not know what is, but it does not end there.
	Not only does the Secretary of State have huge powers to prepare the regional spatial strategy and supervise it; the regional spatial strategy can then inform and dictate the local development framework and document. By that mechanism the Secretary of State is aggregating to himself huge centralising powers under the Bill.

Patrick Cormack: Henry VIII.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: What the Secretary of State does not aggregate to himself through the Bill, he aggregates to himself through order-making powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made clear.

Edward Davey: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but can he tell the House how centralisation under the Bill differs from the centralisation that the Conservatives bequeathed to the country?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening, or he is deaf, or he is incapable of understanding. I have just read that out to him. I shall give him a little advice. Before he goes into Committee, he had better go through the Bill with somebody who knows what it is all about, then he might understand it a little better. He had better do a bit of boning up.
	There are many aspects of the Bill that I want to cover in the short time available. Apart from the powers over the regional spatial strategy and local development documents, the Secretary of State has powers to order joint development documents to be prepared. He has powers of correction of errors. That is an appalling principle to introduce into a Bill. The power of correction of errors allows for sloppy decision making and drafting. Under the old system, if the Secretary of State or any civil servant got a document wrong, it went to the court. That is the system that we ought to adopt. If the House allows for the correction of errors in primary legislation, we are going down a very slippery slope.

Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) that where we aspired to be Henry VII, the Labour Government have exceeded Henry VIII?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is an unfortunate trend, as my hon. Friend says, that every piece of legislation brought in by the Government introduces yet more and yet wider order-making powers into primary legislation. The House is adopting a very bad principle, and we are adopting it with a vengeance in the Bill tonight.
	One could say a lot of things about the Bill. I am very sceptical about the community involvement that it introduces. It is all very well having a statement of community involvement at the level of the local development framework, but there is no such statement at the regional spatial strategy level. Of course, the regional spatial strategy element will dictate to every local authority what it is to put in its local plan. I am very sceptical about that. In Committee, I shall table an amendment seeking to ensure that the regional spatial planning body has some form of community involvement.
	Some very good speeches have been made, and not only from the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke very cogently about the system that operates in Wales. I submit to the Minister, as a constructive point, my belief that the system that the Bill introduces in Wales is much simpler than that which it introduces in England. I cannot understand why one Bill introduces two systems, one of which is much better than the other.
	Like other hon. Members, I should like to comment on simplified planning zones. As I said in an intervention, the concept of such zones has been around since the introduction of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. I told the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that only 20 such zones had been designated since that Act took effect, but I was wrong. In fact, only 10 have been designated. I must tell him that if the environmental impact statement in the Bill is applied to such zones, there will probably be even fewer in future, as the hurdle will be so high that it will be very difficult for anyone to overcome it. We will need in Committee to consider very carefully the powers that apply in relation to the zones.
	The Opposition can welcome some parts of the Bill. I welcome the streamlining on listed buildings and conservation areas, some of the powers for dealing with simultaneous applications and the speeding up of the decision process with regard to the provision of eight weeks within which a local authority must determine a decision. If it does not do so, the applicant can appeal and the matter can go to the Secretary of State for determination.
	As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe—

Clive Betts: rose—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was just coming to the hon. Gentleman, so I shall briefly comment on his speech.
	One of the most cogent things that he said was that what is wrong with the current planning system is the time that it takes to draw up the local development and structural plans. In his case, as there is a unitary authority, there will be a unitary development plan. He was absolutely right about that problem, although it could be put right within the current system. I welcome some of the powers in the Bill to streamline and speed up some of the planning process. Without a proper plan, it is very difficult for local planning officers to make the correct decisions.

Clive Betts: Having listened earlier to the arguments of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) about the need for significant reform of the planning system, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain to the House precisely what the great reforms that the Opposition would like to see amount to, as his hon. Friend did not do so?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We would certainly take out of the Bill altogether the whole section relating to regional spatial strategies. We do not believe in regional assemblies, which are a denigration of democracy and take power away from local people. We want the decision-making process to be taken as close to local people as possible. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy gave the game away: in the past 20 years, 120 Bills have been introduced that have taken powers away from local authorities. We want local authorities to be more accountable and want the Bill to make the planning process faster, more accountable and based on good decisions. We want local people to feel that they have some ownership of the Bill and we want the democratic deficit to be rectified. We want people to have a stake in their planning process. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe gave the game away by saying that local people could look at their local unitary plan, but under the new system they will have to go to Leeds, York, Bradford or somewhere else to do so. How will his local people like that?
	When Labour Members were challenged, their concerns emerged. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) did not want his local plan to be dealt with somewhere in Berkshire and the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) did not want his plan to be dealt with somewhere in Exeter. I put it to the Government that the whole regional strategy will fail and the Bill will be a mess, because if the regional strategy fails, regional planning will be in the hands of unelected officials. How can they be accountable to local people? Local people will feel alienated from the process, and the turnout at local elections will further decrease.
	If the Government want to introduce a system that is fairer and more accountable, they must put more power in the hands of local authorities—even the few that are left. They must not concentrate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, but ensure that people can understand what is going on in their local planning system. The Bill will do exactly the opposite.

Tony McNulty: May I simply say to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that I hope the volume is turned down somewhat in Committee, otherwise we shall be concerned about his health?
	Let me start with some of the basic facts that stand behind the debate. Cascading a policy change through the current hierarchy can take well over a decade. The unitary development plan regime was introduced in 1990, and there are still any number of local authorities without a plan under that system. I am afraid that less than 10 per cent. of local authorities meet all the performance targets for handling planning applications.
	One theme that ran through much of what hon. Members have said this evening is absolutely right, and I said it this morning in the Select Committee: we must achieve, hopefully on a non-partisan basis, a balance between the development control framework and land use policy that the country needs, and the mixture of the concerns about economic development and sustainable communities and the very real concerns that exist in communities that, after all, have to live with the consequences of the planning system.
	We have made it clear elsewhere and I emphasise that the Bill is part of the planning reform agenda. However, it is not the entire agenda. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, we have a huge agenda to deliver Xsustainable communities"—that is everybody's phrase, not just the Liberal Democrats', although they hijack everything that moves. A reformed planning system must be a key part of our strategy for sustainable communities, and the Bill is part of it.

John McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tony McNulty: No. [Interruption.] Let me say purely and simply that my hon. Friend has just got here. He has not been here for the entire day and it is not entirely courteous to seek to intervene in those circumstances.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) spoke at length about welcoming the planning and development grant and about seeking to engage all the professional bodies in order to Xskill up", as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said, the professions in the area. They also spoke about seeking to change entirely the planning culture. We are working closely with the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a range of other bodies to do precisely that, above and beyond simply the planning development grant.

Sydney Chapman: I accept all that the Minister has said and I welcome what he said in that respect, but does he appreciate that the extra resources must go to the planning authorities to allow them to improve their performance, and that therefore the money must be given up front, rather than as a reward if they manage to meet certain targets? It is a very important point.

Tony McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman will discover when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister makes his communities plan statement in January, the full details will not be a million miles away from what the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	As I said, the Liberal Democrats seek to hijack everything, but it is historical revisionism writ large to compare some tiddly little 1907 town planning Act—

Edward Davey: It is 1909.

Tony McNulty: I apologise. The Housing, Town Planning etc. Act 1909 cannot be compared with the glory that is the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, that Act was part of a broad, cross-party post-war consensus.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish seemed to assume that, this morning, when we were in the Select Committee, I said that every single aspect of secondary legislation would be published in draft before the Bill even goes into Committee. If I did, it was an error on my part. As I have said, we shall try to ensure that as much as possible is published as the Committee unfolds and as the Bill proceeds through both Houses, but absolutely not before the Committee's first sitting.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made a thoughtful contribution on the Bill's rural dimension and some useful points about the supposed sanctity of county structure plans. I also accept his point that local development orders can be explored further.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some interesting points about the Welsh dimension and elements of the Irish planning system's gateway process, about which I know. Although it is not as rosy-tinted as he suggests, it is worth exploring.
	Devolution, with which we have no problem, is the reason for the Welsh differences. I almost believed that the hon. Member for Cotswold wanted to get rid of county councils tomorrow because of his great appreciation of the Welsh system, which is rooted in an all-unitary local government structure. It is therefore far easier to apply the spatial strategy there.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright), like others, welcomed the changes to the original suggestions for major infrastructure projects and the compulsory purchase order processes.
	As a near neighbour, I respect the expertise of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who made a thoughtful and reflective speech, which was nevertheless often wrong in emphasis. We will not yet have to change the thrust of section 106 because we shall do that in the new year via a circular rather than through the Bill.
	I know that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has a range of interests in the subject because we had a delightful Adjournment debate on various aspects of the Cambridgeshire green belt. I hope that we can explore that far more in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) delivered an excellent treatise on the substantive logic behind the shift from counties up to regions and down to localities.
	I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) that there is no automatic right to extensive planning permissions after extant consents run out. I will watch with interest as people develop the notion of planning watch wardens running around doing the job of enforcement officers. Perhaps the idea should be explored.
	I would be remiss if I did not at least comment on the Loyal Opposition's amendment, especially some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who opened the debate on their behalf. He described my hon. Friend the Minister's opening comments as an ODPM Christmas carol; the amendment resembles a bad Christmas record such as XMistletoe and Wine".
	The amendment suggests that the Bill
	Xfails to set out a planning framework",
	when that is precisely what it does. It continues by claiming that
	Xit introduces the concept of regional spatial strategies".
	The Bill does not do that. The Greater London Authority Act 1999—I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered it for the best part of three months—introduces that concept.
	The amendment also claims that the Bill
	Xcreates an unclear mechanism of local development documents, principles, frameworks and strategies".
	I point out in passing that much of that has to do with the pleasure of parliamentary counsel. However, the amendment simply refers to a portfolio of specific documents. I do not know how anyone who knows anything about the planning system could make the sort of comments that the hon. Member for Cotswold made.
	The amendment gets better when it states that the Bill
	Xprovides for the concept of the correction of errors".
	Perhaps the lacuna goes back to 1947, but if the Secretary of State or an inspector in his name currently makes a mistake in a decision letter and writes that 29 Acacia avenue rather than 27 Acacia avenue will be bulldozed, the might of the British state can do nothing about it short of going to court to get the decision changed. The contents of the decision letter prevail in the law, which dates from a long time ago.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Shocking.

Tony McNulty: That is by the by. To say that the Bill introduces the concept of correcting errors into the planning system is, with the best will in the world, bonkers. Constructing a principled position around that in a winding-up speech does not work.
	The amendment goes on to say that the Bill
	Xabolishes outline planning permission".
	It does not.
	The amendment also says that the Bill
	Xfails to clarify the position on planning gains and obligations".
	It was never intended to do that. We made it clear before the Bill's publication that that was not going to happen in terms of legislation. We can sort it out in another context.
	A range of Opposition Members told us that all this is about Henry VIII rather than Henry VII or whatever else. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asked the hon. Member for Cotswold how the Bill gives one extra jot of centralising power to the Secretary of State compared with what prevailed under the 1990 or 1991 position. The answer is that the Bill will give the Secretary of State no additional powers—absolutely none. What prevailed under the RPG-UDP regime will still prevail in terms of RSS-LDF.
	We have been told that all this is terribly anti-democratic, but regional planning bodies will be accountable to their regions. Local authority members, who will form the majority, will be accountable to their electorates, but it is right and proper that other representatives should be on the regional planning bodies and accountable to their organisations.
	Under the current arrangements, RPBs receive funding through contributions from local authorities in their region. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill, we shall directly fund the RPBs from April 2003 to the tune of #6 million. We are at least considering whether we can make additional funds available through the planning delivery grant.
	To return to what I said to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, we fully appreciate that capacity building inside local authorities must be the thrust of the #350 million for the planning delivery grant. What I said about the education programme and everything else that we are trying to do with the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors goes beyond that. It goes right back to schools and is part of the process of substantive cultural change and the reskilling of what I fully accept has been a denigrated profession over the past 20 years.
	With the best will in the world and the greatest respect to architects, it cannot be appropriate that our education system produces one town planner for every 20 architects. That is not exactly what the market needs.

Andrew MacKinlay: I asked the Minister to address clause 34 and the new proposals for the inspector in relation to major infrastructure works. Can we have an assurance that there will be no diminution of the planning inquiry structure and that the appointment of an inspector will not bypass or diminish what is, in practice, well-trodden ground? Will the rights of the individual—the small person—to lodge an objection against the big battalions such as BAA be protected?

Tony McNulty: I think my hon. Friend will find that he means clause 43 rather than clause 34. He can have that assurance absolutely, and more. The process will be far speedier and far more responsive. Running a series of concurrent inquiries under a team of inspectors rather than under one inspector will make it far more efficient than anything that has gone before.
	We were told that there is some sort of conspiracy and that there is something fundamentally wrong with the compulsory purchase order provisions, but this is what will prevail: landowners will get the market value of their property plus the cost of the CPO process plus the new loss payment. They will not get the new loss payment and nothing else.
	There are those who suggest that the local authorities somehow corrupt the planning process by utilising it for their own planning permissions. There is a clear position on that, which will remain as it is now: no member of the applicant committee can serve on the planning committee to make such a decision. If the application is outside the existing development plan, it is automatically referred to the Secretary of State rather than there being any debate about it. There is no change at all in terms of the Bill.
	There are huge challenges for our planning system, and we on this side of the House are rising to them. I hope that we have a far better discussion in Committee than we are having now. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
	The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 182.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 28th January 2003.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 142.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State in making grants in connection with the provision of advice in relation to the planning Acts; and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment;
	(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 130.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the remaining motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 109) (HC15) on Special Grant for addressing the costs of EC Regulation 2037/00 on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Disposal of Refrigeration Equipment) 2002, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

Northern Ireland

That the draft Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Natural Health Products

Desmond Swayne: I rise to present the petition of Mrs. Angela Norman, who trades in Lymington under the name of the Sweet Joe Pye. Her petition is concerned that EU directives on herbal products will remove people's freedom to treat themselves with a range of traditional vitamins, mineral supplements and herbal medicines by driving a range of products from the market.
	The petition states:
	The petitioner therefore requests that this honourable House requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
	To lie upon the Table.

Palestine

David Lepper: I rise to present the petition of the Brighton and Hove branch of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which includes nearly 400 signatures, including my own.
	The petition
	Declares that since the beginning of the second Intifada, 2000 Palestinians have been killed and some tens of thousands injured as a result of Israeli armed forces' and settlers' indiscriminate and excessive use of lethal force; that the UK continues to trade arms with Israel despite Israel's appalling human rights record, its grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and its ongoing occupation and settler-colonization of Palestinian lands; that there are also widespread concerns that British-made equipment is being used against Palestinian civilians, in defiance of UK export criteria; that under article 2 of the Euro-Israel Association Agreement, the EU has the right to invoke sanctions against states with poor human rights records; and that Early Day Motion 1140 has called for an immediate embargo on British arms exports to Israel.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to invoke article 2 of the Euro-Israel Association Agreement and impose an immediate embargo on British arms exports to Israel, to be maintained until Israel ends its illegal occupation and respects all UN resolutions.
	To lie upon the Table.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity of an Adjournment debate on employers liability insurance, which I know is a matter of concern to many hon. Members, as evidenced by the all-party support for early-day motion 146, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter).
	I know that the Government have responded on the issue. The Chancellor covered it in his autumn statement, and the Department for Work and Pensions has an inquiry under way. A separate inquiry is taking place under the Office of Fair Trading. One could ask why we should have a debate, as the Government have set the ball rolling. I seek a debate for two reasons. First, to the best of my knowledge, the subject has not been properly debated in the House, at least in recent times. It is important to put on record what the issues are and the extent to which it is a problem for many of our constituents.
	Secondly, it is important to clarify how the Government intend to handle the investigation that they are conducting, and particularly the overlap between the two inquiries. The Office of Fair Trading is an independent entity; it is not under Government control. It is not clear to me how its work on public liability insurance will overlap with the work on employers liability insurance in the Department for Work and Pensions study, especially as the problems are related. The two types of insurance are often sold as a package by the insurance industry. It is important that we understand how the Government intend that the two inquiries should relate to each other and what end product we can expect from them.
	Like many hon. Members who have become interested in the subject through direct constituency experience, I was not aware that there was a problem until about six months ago, when a constituent came to me. She was a very elderly disabled lady, who used to go every lunchtime to the council's lunch club for pensioners, until the ambulance arrived one day and the driver said that he was under strict instructions not to help her into the ambulance. I wrote an indignant letter to the local council and was told that that was indeed correct. The council was nervous about its insurance policy and the rising cost of insurance, and could not take the risk of its employees suffering back strain by helping a disabled person in those circumstances. I was asked to understand that the insurance issue was technically difficult and that the council had to respect the conditions.
	There are many more extensive problems of that kind. Many small businesses, particularly in the building industry, outdoor pursuits and care homes, face escalating insurance claims. The issue also affects the voluntary sector substantially. Many of us are getting reports that voluntary organisations that run ambulance services face substantial employer liability or public liability claims. The Boy Scouts and Girl Guides have had a big increase in insurance costs for the same reason. To what extent will the voluntary sector be covered by the inquiry that the Minister's Department is undertaking or does he envisage it being concerned purely with business narrowly defined?
	The seriousness of the problem is best illustrated not by anecdote, but by some of the figures that are beginning to emerge from the industry. As far as I can establish, there has been an average increase of 30 to 50 per cent. in the cost of insurance over the past year, but some individual companies face increases of 500 per cent., and in some extreme cases, 800 per cent. On average, the increase is substantial—perhaps 30 to 50 per cent.
	More serious even than that are the widespread cases, which are now well documented, of large numbers of companies that cannot obtain insurance at all or try to manage without, which is potentially disastrous for their employees and the wider public. The British Chambers of Commerce carried out a survey that suggested that 9 per cent. of manufacturing companies are not covered by employers liability insurance, although that is a statutory requirement, and that 6 per cent. of all businesses are not covered. A separate study commissioned by the insurance company AXA suggested that about 13 per cent. of all small businesses—210,000 businesses with 1.8 million employees—are not properly covered by employers liability insurance as the law requires.

Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that, because people not having cover is so serious, the Minister should say that the current inquiry is urgent and will be brought to a conclusion sooner, rather than later?

Vincent Cable: I hope that the Minister will do so. My understanding is that the report will take three months to produce. No doubt, we will be given some confirmation about the schedule and how it relates to the timetable of the OFT inquiry.
	The issue on which we need to make a little progress is why the problem has arisen. Different reasons have been advanced, some of which are self-serving for the interested parties. While reading the literature about the issue, I sensed that a blame culture is developing. The unions tend to blame business for not looking after health and safety, business blames the insurers for ripping it off, the insurers blame the lawyers for their high costs and the lawyers blame us for legislating. There is a tendency to pass the buck back and forth in deciding who is responsible. Without trying to ascribe blame, it is clear that several different factors are involved. It is probably useful to itemise them and ask whether the Minister will conduct as part of the inquiry an analytical study of what is driving this big problem in the insurance market.
	First, the rise of premiums in the wake of international terrorism has affected the reinsurance market and those effects have percolated down into insurance costs generally. A second factor is the collapse of independent insurance, which dealt with the high-risk end of employers liability insurance and accounted for a lot of business. That has clearly affected the rest of the market.
	There is a third factor that I do not fully understand and which the Minister might help to explain. For some years in the 1990s, the insurance industry under-priced insurance and it now appears to be trying to catch up. Various theories have been advanced about that. One refers to ferocious competition in the 1990s and another to the systematic under-pricing of products as a loss leader to attract other forms of insurance. It is not clear what happened, but that is one of the explanations given by the industry.
	Furthermore, stock exchange collapse meant that companies could no longer part with their premium income as they did in the bull period of the stock market, and another factor was the emergence of new sorts of risk, especially in relation to illnesses associated with occupation. Big asbestos claims were made, and the emergence of new problems such as strain injury also led to claims.
	Finally and perhaps most importantly—this is not completely clear—the no win, no fee system of litigation emerged. The industry argues that about 40 per cent. of all claims are now accounted for by legal costs. The adversarial legal system that underlies the system of employers liability insurance may well be driving up costs very substantially.
	There are, however, some subsidiary questions that the Government may be able usefully to explore. Has there been a substantial increase in what one might call the compensation culture? The evidence that I have seen is mixed. I think that claims are increasing by about 7 per cent. a year, but one could argue that those channelled through the trade unions have been rising at a fairly stable rate for a very long time and that a change in culture does not explain the sudden jump.
	Another factor could be that no win, no claim insurance is seriously distorting the market and encouraging a system resembling the national lottery in which lawyers and their clients go for big payouts because they recognise—this can certainly apply to clients—that they can afford to lose the case. It is producing inequities in the damages and claims market, and it is loaded with lawyers' costs. Thus a whole set of factors is involved, and it would be useful to know the extent to which the Government inquiry will deal with the no win, no claim problem and whether the legal profession lies behind the escalation of claims.
	What is the Government's role in all this? I do not fully understand the technicalities, but I believe that the Government set the discount rate through the Lord Chancellor and that that, in turn, determines the level at which damages are awarded in litigation cases. Perhaps the Minister would explain whether the matter constitutes a Government policy issue.
	A problem clearly exists. The number of claims is rising by 7 per cent. a year and settlements have increased by some 100 per cent. over five years and a staggering 300 per cent. in a decade. Thus a set of factors is causing massive inflation in litigation costs, which has affected premiums.
	In the remaining few minutes, I want to ask the Minister whether the Government will focus on the big policy issues surrounding employers liability insurance, and liability insurance more generally. To what extent is the insurance industry providing value for money? Will the Government study cover that, or will it be left to the Office of Fair Trading? In his early-day motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised issues about the transparency and consistency of the insurance market, and whether insurance companies give sufficient notice. Clearly, there are problems in the day-to-day functioning of the market, and it would be useful to know whether the Government will analyse them or leave them to the OFT.
	Other issues include competition in the insurance market and the packaging of insurance products. Different types of liability are sold simultaneously, making competition more difficult to achieve. Another issue surrounding the operation of the insurance industry is the sharing of information within the industry, and it would be useful to know whether that will be examined. One of the most galling problems for small companies is that they may have a faultless track record and impeccable performance on health and safety and safeguarding their employees, but that is rarely taken into account in establishing premium rates. It would appear that there is nothing comparable to the Co-op insurance market, where good performance is rewarded and bad performance punished. It would be useful for the Government's inquiry to establish whether information sharing between insurance companies could be advanced to make the market work better. In terms of basic insurance principles, it does not appear to work at all.
	A second set of questions concerns different types of illness and injury and whether they should be covered by employers liability insurance. A debate is ongoing as to whether it is reasonable and practical to expect the insurance market to cover diseases as well as injuries and the associated occupational illnesses that have arisen from, for example, asbestos, which is the classic case. That presents special problems for the industry, because claims are made many years after employees have worked and insurance was taken out.
	I can see that, from the employee's standpoint, it is vital that insurance claims are met, and it is right that they should be. Basic causality suggests that insurance applies, but it presents a separate set of problems and I should be interested to know whether the Government will look at the scope of employers liability insurance, and how they propose to deal with the issue. Will they consider, for example, pooling insurance for diseases as opposed to injuries?
	It would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to examine their role in funding. The industry has made various proposals, for example, for the Government to act as an insurer of last resort. They did that, rightly or wrongly, in the case of the foot and mouth epidemic. They have assumed lender-of-last-resort responsibilities in the case of terrorism and, to some extent, in other matters. The industry argues that the model of pool reinsurance, which was used for terrorist insurance, should be used for a wider range of insurance. It suggests not that the Government should subsidise the insurance market but that they should act as an insurer of last resort. It would be useful to know the extent to which the Government are considering that.
	The Government's study lasts only three months and so cannot go into the issues too deeply, but has it considered fundamentally new models of handling employment insurance? There is a strong argument for getting away completely from an adversarial system driven by lawyers' costs and moving to one that provides companies with genuine incentives to take good care of their employees, have good health and safety records, and invest heavily in the rehabilitation of people who have had accidents.
	There are models for such an approach. I believe that the German worker compensation scheme is designed so that in the case of accident or disease, payments are awarded according to a basic scale and there is no need for individual litigation. The industry pays a levy that varies according to how individual sectors or even companies have protected themselves against the risk of accident. It would be useful to know the extent to which the Government will undertake such a fundamental examination.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to raise those issues and pose questions. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Malcolm Wicks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate on a subject of growing importance. Employers liability insurance is an essential safeguard for those in work. It provides a means of compensation for those who are injured or made ill at work through the fault of their employer. That measure is well established and has been on the statute book for more than 30 years. The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 requires employers to insure those liabilities.
	The debate is timely because it follows a period of great difficulty for many employers, as the hon. Gentleman said, in securing the insurance, and within a week of the Government's commencing a significant review of the operation of employers liability insurance. I know that hon. Members will not be disappointed if I do not prejudge the outcome of the review and discuss recommendations that have not yet been formulated.
	There are two sorts of workplace compensation in the United Kingdom—employers liability compulsory insurance, which we are discussing, albeit briefly, this evening, and state benefits, principally industrial injuries disability benefit. The first is fault-based and the state system is no-fault-based.
	An employee who is injured or contracts a disease or has been made ill through work can apply for state benefits. However, an employee who believes that the condition arises at least in part from the employer's negligence has the right to sue. If successful, the compensation will be paid from the employer's insurer, with the state recovering from the insurer any moneys paid out in benefit.
	Employers liability compulsory insurance, which is an essential safeguard, requires employers to insure against such liabilities. It is based on two fundamental principles, which the Government continue to stand by: the right of employees to access to justice and the responsibility of employers to fund the cost of their negligence. In a sense, it is the principle of Xpolluter pays."
	Although it is compulsory for employers to have the insurance, it is not compulsory for insurers to provide it. There is therefore a need to ensure an effective and affordable market. We are part of the way through the renewal year, and it is therefore hard to be precise about the scale of difficulties experienced in the market this year. The hon. Gentleman has reviewed the evidence in his own way.
	Industry sources suggest that, on average, employment liability premiums have increased by about 40 per cent. In some sectors, those increases have been much more acute with reported premium increases of several hundred per cent. That has especially affected sectors that have been perceived as having higher health and safety risks, such as the construction industry, and has been felt in particular by small and medium-sized businesses.
	The Government have been monitoring the situation and working closely with trade associations and representatives of insurers and brokers. Our experience suggests that the problems have been largely ones of cost of cover rather than complete unavailability, but it is certainly true that for many businesses affordable cover has become much more difficult to find this year.
	Much has been said about the number of firms going out of business or trading uninsured. Here, too, the accuracy of figures is difficult to assess. I have seen reports in a survey commissioned by AXA of large numbers of companies trading uninsured, but the scale of those figures, based on the extrapolation of a much smaller survey, contrasts with our own enforcement evidence and information from other stakeholders.
	The Health and Safety Executive enforces employers liability compulsory insurance. Traditionally, that has been a small part of the executive's work, because compliance has been high, but it is important to emphasise that employment liability insurance has been cheap in the United Kingdom—about 0.25 per cent. of total payroll compared with 1.5 to 2.5 per cent. for compensation schemes overseas. Indeed, until recently some insurers were selling employment liability insurance as a loss leader—an attractive part of a wider package of other insurance such as motor cover.
	The latest Health and Safety Executive figures suggest that compliance remains high. Between April and September this year, its workplace contact officers contacted 4,366 small and medium-sized businesses, but those contacts required statutory action in just 14 cases. The work of the executive's general inspectors resulted in a further 30 such incidents over the same period.
	On average, there have been five prosecutions a year for the past five years, and four so far this year. However, a British Insurance Brokers Association survey suggested that several hundred firms had either gone out of business, citing insurance costs as the reason for the company failure, or were trading uninsured. Trade associations have reported similar figures.
	While we by no means accept that there has been a general market failure, we are not complacent about the real difficulties faced by business in tough trading conditions; nor are we complacent about compliance. I must be clear: it is totally unacceptable for any firm to trade uninsured. The penalties are high—up to #2,500 a day for failure to insure—but, beyond that, trading in such a manner removes the protection to which employees have a right, throws back the costs of that firm's negligence to the general taxpayer and creates an illegal commercial advantage over other competitors that have decided to act responsibly—the great majority, of course.
	I hope the House agrees that, as we endeavour to work through the problems in the employer liability market, we must also be firm about enforcement of the existing law. Stakeholders have suggested a number of factors that may explain this year's difficulties. The hon. Gentleman also outlined his own analysis. May I outline ours?
	The traditionally cyclical insurance market has been Xhardening"—a process exacerbated by the consequences of the attacks on the World Trade Centre. That has led insurers to look much more closely at the extent to which claims are being covered by underwriting income. Employment liability has traditionally been written at an underwriting loss. Premium income in 2001 was about #1.1 billion while claims totalled over #1.5 billion. Such losses have been offset by returns from investing the premium income on the stock market, so the sharp downturn in stock market performance has compounded the problem, we believe.
	The collapse of two leading insurers in this market has tightened the market and caused those remaining to look hard at the risks of their business. The result has been a sharp transition in premium prices as the market has adjusted from its traditionally cheap basis to one that now bears the commercial cost. That has come with little warning, and consequently there has been little opportunity for businesses to adjust to these new and sharply imposed costs. Insurers and brokers have suggested that this year represents a market correction. They do not expect premium increases to be as acute next year, though conditions will remain tough. We will continue to monitor the situation.
	There are no short-term fixes, but this year's difficulties have also served to highlight a number of underlying or longer-term questions about the system. The Government take concerns from stakeholders seriously when we hear them. We want to ensure that our system of workplace compensation is efficient, sustainable and fair. For that reason, the pre-Budget report signalled our intention to review the operation of employers liability insurance. The start of the review and its terms of reference were announced in a statement to the House last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work.
	We are working closely with those responsible for the review by the Office of Fair Trading. The two exercises are different. The OFT study will encompass public product liability, professional and employers liability insurance, but it will not examine employer liability in the same depth or consider the same range of issues as our inquiry will. The OFT's work will be wider ranging than our review and will complement it. The OFT has discussed its draft terms of reference with our Department, and will remain in close contact with us and other key Departments.
	I understand the point about the voluntary sector. We have already discussed this issue with our colleagues in the Home Office, which is the lead Department for that sector. Our review is about employer liability rather than general public liability, but we take on board the important issue about the voluntary sector.
	We need to be careful. The system that we have in place has worked well for many years. It has provided cover for employees and, historically, has not been a burdensome cost on employers. The speed of transition this year has been painful, but UK costs remain competitive with those abroad. Many overseas systems, which are also facing difficulties, are beginning to adopt some of the characteristics of the UK approach. However, as I have emphasised, it is clear that aspects of the present system that have been raised by stakeholders and by the hon. Gentleman are well worth examining. A key question is whether employer liability is commercially sustainable in the longer term.
	We also need to examine the extent to which the #2 billion per annum going into workplace compensation actively contributes to effective outcomes. Do those costs give employers the incentive to manage health and safety more effectively? Do insurers discriminate between good and bad performers? Does the compensation that is paid do all that it might properly to rehabilitate those affected back into work, returning them to economic and social activity? Those are all important questions.

John Burnett: I hope that the review will consider the huge extension of conditional fee agreements. For the first time, lawyers have a big interest in the outcome of litigation.

Malcolm Wicks: We seek evidence from all those with an interest in this matter. We will review all factors that have led to the present situation.
	I do not want to draw conclusions on any of these issues now. We have established the review to undertake that task, and Ministers will look hard at its findings when it reports next spring. In the final analysis, the single most sustainable approach is one based on good health and safety. The more effectively employers manage health and safety the fewer claims there will be. That has to be the best outcome for all concerned.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.